I have reviewed the audition tapes you all sent in for Survivor Pharyngula, averaged together the scores given to people who had multiple recommendations, and sorted them into a ranked list, and then arbitrarily threw out everyone who got below a score of 40. Here’s the list of Enemies of the Threads.
- yanshen71786
- Professor Frink
- j-brisby
- Al B. Quirky
- Sili
- MaxH
- Manny Calavera
- Brownian
- Joshua Zelinsky
- Ing
- Walton
- Cuttlefish
- Ogvorbis
- sandiseattle
Rascals and troublemakers, every one. But the list is too long! I have to whittle it down a bit before we move on to the next stage, so in my role as capricious autocrat, I’m going to give them all a chance to ask to be excused. Beg for mercy, entertain me, show cause to keep you around, and perhaps I shall decide on a whim to remove you from the list. It doesn’t matter if I agree with your views or not, demonstrating a sense of humor would be a plus, as would being able to make a rational argument.
I want this list cut in half, at least — if every one of these people shows that their presence is worth something to the site, maybe I’ll just call the whole show off.
So, before I throw you to the mercies of the Pharyngula commentariat, you irksome infernal rabble-rousers can show me why I should keep you around. Unless you want to be thrown to the mob, of course…
When has any such discussion been limited to discussion Black folks and White folks?
You may certainly infer another hypothesis. Now, performs studies and do meta-analysis of existing studies, and have this peer-reviewed and replicated. Then your hypothesis can be discussed realistically. Culture will have a heavier hand than any genetic variation (go ahead, find those genes and their products and how they operate in the network of processes to produce real “racial” differences.)
Fuck the newspaper article. What is your interpretation of the actual study? Have you read it? What I see is your interpretation of a newspaper’s interpretation of a study and what was said about it – hardly a clear contradiction.
As you have dismissed all other studies and conclusions opposing this. A newspaper article, again, is not evidence.
Nice try. And how was “race” defined for this poll? Poll methodology released and peer-reviewed?
A lot of biologists do use “race” as a useful term, usually given a clear operant definition for the purposes of exactly one study. You cannot use race to assume traits, but you can use traits to inform the definition of race for a particular purpose. The rather extremely large lack of differences between “races” argues against any meaningful differences in scoring intelligence, while cultural aspects handily fit the bill. The largest use in biology for the term race, where it may have an effect on how a person is medically diagnosed for symptoms of a medical problem, is due to genetic variation in response to disease vectors mostly unique to geographical division. The public perception of race has little to no relation to scientific use of the term, excepting where the scientists may me racist themselves. (Eugenics, baby.)
How about this: Where do your race definitions begin and end? Let’s play with white people. There have been times where large groups of Europeans with whiter skin have been divided geographically into groups where hair color was mostly red, or blond, or black, or brown. (Actually, there is still a noticeable geographic gradient.) Are these different races? If not, then why are e.g., the Mon a different race than I (mostly Euro-mutt American)?
But never mind, this thread is not about your theories, it is about the banhammer. Not your meta-banhammer meta-defense. You are sucking canal water here, fuckwit.