Not
>>25, but here goes:
>>27
You'd be more credible if you weren't so incredibly defensive. Your insecurities are showing.
Is that a real argument? I have no insecurities about the existence of human biodiversity, and neither did that guy.
And we had a racism thread recently. Look for it. Your arguments were debunked quite thoroughly.
Link it, use the arguments again, or GTFO. However, don't bother if it's the usual retarded leftist arguments.
>>28
Isn't sociobiology really just a psuedo-science anyways? I mean it's all incredibly subjective...good for explaining what happened maybe, but certainly not yet able to make any predictions as far as social behavior.
What
>>29 said.
And...dude...yeah there is a lot of stuff factually wrong with Watson's remarks. Just because you didn't bother to look into it because they agreed with your beliefs doesn't mean that he was right.
I "looked into it," I read most peer reviewed papers on intelligence. What's wrong with the link that guy had posted? It basically deals with everything.
Besides Watson and Crick basically stole their findings from Rosalind Franklin.
Oh wow, lies and Jew worship from the media who had aimed to crucify Watson for making scientifically accurate but politically incorrect remarks. Suddenly, once he made a remark that the Left doesn't like, he becomes a shoddy researcher who stole their findings from a Jew. We truly live in an age of intellectual blight...
I have seen in another smear version that he's 1/8 Black... Whatever their point was.
>>29
Signed, recently they have made advancements though.