>>16
Actually, I'd prefer something that is true, thanks. This non-truth, however, has nothing to do with what I'm asking. Maybe when I state my later questions I'll discuss this specific fallacy.
>>17
OP you're asking imprecise questions and then getting angry about it.
My question is very precise, and only completely ignorant rubes would have a problem understanding it.
Listen, I've been told by numerous libfags [...] that I shouldn't judge groups by their skin colour [...] but also scientifically incorrect (i.e. I cannot ecologically link skin colour to cognitive ability [...])
So, leftists believe that
I cannot ecologically link skin colour to cognitive ability
That would mean, for me to be inaccurate, that the ecological correlate (Read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_correlation if you are completely clueless) would be hovering around zero (an ecological correlation can be positive or negative too).
(Some) libfags play on human emotions when they say I scientifically can't judge groups by 'merely' skin colour. Now I'm asking libfags to restate their position, because they're the Enlightened Ones, with 'science on their side.'
Science can't be used to justify racism,
Yes it can, and very much so, but I'll get to that later (if I won't die of boredom sooner trying to get straight answer from libfags).
is that what you're going for?
Not really, at the moment I want an answer to a simple question.
Example of what I thought libfags, in their religiosity and delusion, would reply:
Yes, I think it is [scientifically] wrong to discriminate against certain groups, on the sole basis of skin colour (and not race), by cognitive ability. No, I don't know how/why my position is backed by science, but I think it is.
It seems you aren't even brave enough to do that, and IT'S JUST A FUCKING QUESTION.