>>172
You still fail.
Only in your twisted mind. I cannot change that, obviously, I can only ridicule you with science.
Racial inequality is just as dogmatic as Racial equality.
That's just as saying evolution is just as dogmatic as creationism. I can show studies, and you "refute" it in your mind with whining.
Nothing that you say matters, because it's not proven casually in nature as (like I said before) we do not live in a Darwinsitic society based on Meritocracy and we haven't for a good 2000 years.
That is irrelevant to my post and this thread.
Readers should note how the egalitarian brings politics into this when there should be studies proving his point.
You rail against Marxist fascism and Socialism, meanwhile those very concepts are what are needed to preserve a "racially unequal" society, which, apparently is your utopia.
Again, whining about irrelevant politics. As for Marxism, Fascism and Socialism being needed to preserve a "racially unequal society", I lol'ed heartily. Marxism and Socialism helping racial inequality? HAHAHAHAHA. This creationist probably thinks natural selection came with a government system.
What you want, is for people to be judged based on this quaint notion of "g".
Again, spreading doubt about "g." It is widely accepted in academia and no one in their right mind denies it. I don't care about your morality-based shortcomings on it. They have to do with your ideology rather than science.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1998generalintelligencefactor.pdf
Read these, especially the second one where it explains g in layman terms. Just be clear, what you're saying is that psychometrics is essentially a lie (based on moral reasons)?
Sorry, faggot, Kurt Vonnegut pointed out the latent faggotry in that ideal in "Player Piano." -- Your old shit is old and still shitty.
Tell me you are fucking joking.
As for me? I care about this in the same way I care about some 10 year old kids wrestling close to any of my expensive shit. I don't care why you're fighting or what you believe in at this point, seeing as that as far as I'm concerned anyone who puts too much emphasis on something they had no control over for their "identity" is a rube waiting to get taken advantage of, or taken out if the game of life completely. This is how my fellow sociopaths who control this world look at it and you'll do well to realize it as the reason you struggle day in and day out.
Politics, politics, politics.
If I'm not making money or deriving happiness from it and you're putting my shit in jeopardy, then I'll be forced to (A) Point out the irrationality of your actions and hope that'll keep your from fucking too much shit up. Or (B) Use your stupidity to my advantage at the expense of your ideals and maybe even your life.
Same reply as above.
Furthermore, the studies you listed prove nothing and there's numerous articles on google, wikipedia, in scientific journals that chalk "g" up to environmental factors as well as genetic.
Are you trying to be funny or is that a real argument? I never said "g" is solely determined by genetics. I just looked again at
>>169 , the post you are responding to, to make sure I did not make a mistake. Guess what... :-)
The matter, unless something more absolute is presented, will always be up opinion and what political beliefs you want the science to support. You're not fooling anyone by crying "science science science".
That's just what Creationists say, and it's called "argument from ignorance." From Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance):
* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
But that's despite all the recent evidence against them.
You started calling black people "niggers" long before you looked up the inheritability of IQ. I know it, the other posters here know, and deep down you know it.
Huh? That's funny, now you're starting with conspiracy theories.
This being my 4th post in this thread, all I can wish you is "9/11 Truth!" :-)
There's a reason why when other posters ask you what social or political changes you seek from the interpretation of the data that you continue to ignore the question or answer with vague terms and nebulous calls to arms.
And there is a reason why scientific research should be free from politics. What the fuck is your point? As for the data I'm ignoring, yeah, like there's a lot of data to ignore coming from you. Moralism is not data, you fucking retard.
Your post, despite what
>>173 claims, was hardly "great" because you had no data to back it up. Fail more creationist.
>>173
Please go on, but isn't Lexis Nexis (sp? -- I think mine is right) more related to law than anything else? Either way, do it. As for arguing with me being like arguing with creationists, are you kidding? You're part of the retards saying that evolution just decided to skip affecting people's cognitive abilities when they moved from Africa to a completely different environment, so some 21st century faggots' egalitarian ideology wouldn't lose it's credibility.