22 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 42nd comment:
Scandum said:
Without knowing what genes increase IQ it's indeed impossible to measure genotypic IQ. You can however make the assumption that if people with an IQ above 100 have less children than people with an IQ below 100, the genotypic IQ is decreasing, even when phenotypic IQ is increasing due to better nutrition.
Tee hee hee. :lol:
flumpy said:
Are you seriously arguing for Eugenics? Do you even understand what intelligence is on any level?
Aww, don't take him too seriously. By that I mean it's not worth much of your time trying to reason with him. He's not interested in honest debate, just his pseudo-scientific hand-waving.
22 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 43rd comment:
flumpy said:
Seriously, you really aught to think hard before you carry on this discussion, because you have all the marks of someone racing headlong into the racist wall at full speed…
That's nothing new.
22 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 44th comment:
David Haley said:
Aww, don't take him too seriously. By that I mean it's not worth much of your time trying to reason with him. He's not interested in honest debate, just his pseudo-scientific hand-waving.
hmm guess I was troll food.. but seriously you guys put up with this??
22 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 45th comment:
Tyche said:
The human right to marry and found families is so fundamental that even the dysfunctional U.N. managed to discover it.
Oh, I'm glad to see you recognize the right to marry as a fundamental human right :)
For anyone else that might be interested: http://www.whiteknot.org/
Also, on the other topic, I'm pretty sure I've seen studies where a certain country either sterilized or killed the least intelligent (or possibly mentally retarded) individuals in their society, and there was no noticeable drop in the number of individuals born that they were trying to weed out. Go figure. I'll see if I can't find more info on what I'm recalling.
22 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 46th comment:
flumpy said:
hmm guess I was troll food.. but seriously you guys put up with this??
David Haley said:
Aww, don't take him too seriously. By that I mean it's not worth much of your time trying to reason with him. He's not interested in honest debate, just his pseudo-scientific hand-waving.
hmm guess I was troll food.. but seriously you guys put up with this??
Well, define "put up with this". It's not like people welcome Scandum's ideas with open arms. People generally consider him to be a "crackpot scientist" when he goes into this mode. That said, he was banned at one point for pushing things a little too far.
22 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 47th comment:
flumpy said:
Seriously, you really aught to think hard before you carry on this discussion, because you have all the marks of someone racing headlong into the racist wall at full speed…
The way I see it you guys are banging your heads against the 'racism' wall, unable to break through.
I've not seen a single attempt at a logical debate or providing reliable sources. I guess this is because the hard facts don't support your viewpoint, so the only option left is personal attacks, double standards, and screaming.
22 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 48th comment:
Scandum said:
The way I see it you guys are banging your heads against the 'racism' wall, unable to break through.
There's hope for this one yet! :rolleyes:
22 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 49th comment:
Scandum said:
I've not seen a single attempt at a logical debate or providing reliable sources. I guess this is because the hard facts don't support your viewpoint, so the only option left is personal attacks, double standards, and screaming.
So the part where you abjectly confessed to not really
knowing specific GIQ after all, when I presented you with
the unarguable fact that you could not know it…what was that, then?
Sadly, Scandum, your idea of "logical debate" is other people
saying "Yes, Dr. Science, I agree with you."
So to you, anything else is some kind of truth-hate or
logic-envy or somesuch.
Since you're so impervious to actual reason, I'm not surprised
you fail to understand it when people stop bothering to
engage you and just have fun.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
22 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 50th comment:
Scandum said:
The way I see it you guys are banging your heads against the 'racism' wall, unable to break through.
I've not seen a single attempt at a logical debate or providing reliable sources. I guess this is because the hard facts don't support your viewpoint, so the only option left is personal attacks, double standards, and screaming.
flumpy said:
Seriously, you really aught to think hard before you carry on this discussion, because you have all the marks of someone racing headlong into the racist wall at full speed…
The way I see it you guys are banging your heads against the 'racism' wall, unable to break through.
I've not seen a single attempt at a logical debate or providing reliable sources. I guess this is because the hard facts don't support your viewpoint, so the only option left is personal attacks, double standards, and screaming.
That's because almost any discussion on any matter on any forum is met with your intellectual flimflam.
22 Jun, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 51st comment:
Runter said:
That's because almost any discussion on any matter on any forum is met with your intellectual flimflam.
Far from. I'd get the same response arguing in favor of evolution in a bible boot camp. I'd be told repeatedly that evolution is stupid, and that in fact, I was stupid.
Also, calling someone stupid is at the same level as calling someone a Nazi, so I invoke Godwin's law.
22 Jun, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 52nd comment:
Scandum said:
Far from. I'd get the same response arguing in favor of evolution in a bible boot camp. I'd be told repeatedly that evolution is stupid, and that in fact, I was stupid.
Also, calling someone stupid is at the same level as calling someone a Nazi, so I invoke Godwin's law.
Runter said:
That's because almost any discussion on any matter on any forum is met with your intellectual flimflam.
Far from. I'd get the same response arguing in favor of evolution in a bible boot camp. I'd be told repeatedly that evolution is stupid, and that in fact, I was stupid.
Also, calling someone stupid is at the same level as calling someone a Nazi, so I invoke Godwin's law.
flimflam does not imply stupidity, it implies intentional deception. Lrn 2 englsh
-Crat
22 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 53rd comment:
Scandum said:
Far from. I'd get the same response arguing in favor of evolution in a bible boot camp. I'd be told repeatedly that evolution is stupid, and that in fact, I was stupid.
Also, calling someone stupid is at the same level as calling someone a Nazi, so I invoke Godwin's law.
Runter said:
That's because almost any discussion on any matter on any forum is met with your intellectual flimflam.
Far from. I'd get the same response arguing in favor of evolution in a bible boot camp. I'd be told repeatedly that evolution is stupid, and that in fact, I was stupid.
Also, calling someone stupid is at the same level as calling someone a Nazi, so I invoke Godwin's law.
It's rubbish no matter of which side of the aisle you fall on. And it's quite obvious nonsense.
22 Jun, 2009, flumpy wrote in the 54th comment:
Scandum said:
Far from. I'd get the same response arguing in favor of evolution in a bible boot camp. I'd be told repeatedly that evolution is stupid, and that in fact, I was stupid.
Also, calling someone stupid is at the same level as calling someone a Nazi, so I invoke Godwin's law.
Runter said:
That's because almost any discussion on any matter on any forum is met with your intellectual flimflam.
Far from. I'd get the same response arguing in favor of evolution in a bible boot camp. I'd be told repeatedly that evolution is stupid, and that in fact, I was stupid.
Also, calling someone stupid is at the same level as calling someone a Nazi, so I invoke Godwin's law.
I've had many debates with Christian fundamentalists about evolution and no one has ever invoked Godwin's law at me..
Perhaps your evolutionary arguments in that case were, er, stupid?
[edit - i hope this doesn't now become an argument about evolution :(]
22 Jun, 2009, Runter wrote in the 55th comment:
flumpy said:
[edit - i hope this doesn't now become an argument about evolution :(]
Scandum would probably like that.
22 Jun, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 56th comment:
Runter said:
Scandum would probably like that.
flumpy said:
[edit - i hope this doesn't now become an argument about evolution :(]
Scandum would probably like that.
Already been covered… it went for 21 pages and over 300 posts… remember?
Here you go:
http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topi...
23 Jun, 2009, Guest wrote in the 57th comment:
A wise man once said:
If you don't like the content of a thread - click on another link.
Seriously, where things are headed now is generally considered bad territory to cover anywhere but a politics forum. Which this is not. The original question of population capacity of the Earth was interesting, but I had a case of tl;dr somewhere around post 1 (sorry Lyanic!). I very much doubt it's going to be the least bit productive to engage in further discussions of where one stands on racism and evolution.
If you don't like the content of a thread - click on another link.
Seriously, where things are headed now is generally considered bad territory to cover anywhere but a politics forum. Which this is not. The original question of population capacity of the Earth was interesting, but I had a case of tl;dr somewhere around post 1 (sorry Lyanic!). I very much doubt it's going to be the least bit productive to engage in further discussions of where one stands on racism and evolution.
23 Jun, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 58th comment:
Point taken, Samson.
As an observer, it seems so far people are just dancing around the fire, sort of daring each other to jump through it. While this does nothing to further discussion of the topic, it seems to be harmless entertainment. And it's kind of a gas, seeing hot topics handled playfully.
But yeh, I think the thread will get hosed at the first heated response. Stay cool.
As an observer, it seems so far people are just dancing around the fire, sort of daring each other to jump through it. While this does nothing to further discussion of the topic, it seems to be harmless entertainment. And it's kind of a gas, seeing hot topics handled playfully.
But yeh, I think the thread will get hosed at the first heated response. Stay cool.
23 Jun, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 59th comment:
#36 Posted June 22nd, 3:12 am
#37 Posted Jun 22nd, 8:31 am
Nobody was referring at all to either Scandum or Scandum's posts in the above exchange.
It was my opinion that your troll detection unit is defective.
I think I quite accurately summarized the troll's post.
And of course that meta Mudbytes chatty thingy proves my point:
Tyche said:
Non sequitur FAIL.
The human right to marry and found families is so fundamental that even the dysfunctional U.N. managed to discover it.
I won't pretend to understand your Troll memes. I suppose "Communism - hey let's give it another go" or "How to best cleanse the planet of human detritus" (my summary) don't activate your detector.
David Haley said:
Troll detection FAIL, as the meme would say. :tongue:
Hades_Kane said:
Plenty of people feel its God's command to jump onto airplanes and crash into buildings, but we find that to be a problem nevertheless.
Tyche said:
It's God's command, therefore it isn't a problem.
Lyanic said:
The problem is, there are too many people around the world who think that reproducing without end is their God given right (quite literally).
It's God's command, therefore it isn't a problem.
Plenty of people feel its God's command to jump onto airplanes and crash into buildings, but we find that to be a problem nevertheless.
Troll detection FAIL, as the meme would say. :tongue:
Non sequitur FAIL.
The human right to marry and found families is so fundamental that even the dysfunctional U.N. managed to discover it.
I won't pretend to understand your Troll memes. I suppose "Communism - hey let's give it another go" or "How to best cleanse the planet of human detritus" (my summary) don't activate your detector.
#37 Posted Jun 22nd, 8:31 am
David Haley said:
You thought people were taking Scandum seriously, as anything but a troll? And you thought people were seriously saying we should give communism another go?
Your reading of the thread must be dramatically different from mine… :rolleyes:
EDIT: well, I suppose it's possible that Scandum himself actually believes all the stuff he spouts on the topic, but I think it's pretty clear from the replies to his posts that people aren't giving him too much credit…
Your reading of the thread must be dramatically different from mine… :rolleyes:
EDIT: well, I suppose it's possible that Scandum himself actually believes all the stuff he spouts on the topic, but I think it's pretty clear from the replies to his posts that people aren't giving him too much credit…
Nobody was referring at all to either Scandum or Scandum's posts in the above exchange.
It was my opinion that your troll detection unit is defective.
I think I quite accurately summarized the troll's post.
And of course that meta Mudbytes chatty thingy proves my point:
Quote
[Mon Jun 22 16:21:39 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: I see my pet drama thread is growing into a full fledged monster. Excellent.
[Mon Jun 22 16:22:21 2009] [Server01:ichat] DavidHaley@MW: hrmph
[Mon Jun 22 16:22:40 2009] [Server01:ichat] DavidHaley@MW: basically, you were trolling :P
[Mon Jun 22 16:22:47 2009] [Server01:ichat] DavidHaley@MW: just without being offensive
[Mon Jun 22 16:23:44 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: lol, yes…I freely admit to it
[Mon Jun 22 16:24:04 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: I even crafted my original post to be laced with points I knew would be attacked
[Mon Jun 22 16:24:16 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: That's what happens when I get really, really, really bored - like I was on Saturday
[Mon Jun 22 16:26:37 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: Sadly, the thread is only a few replies short of the most ever for one I've created
[Mon Jun 22 16:22:21 2009] [Server01:ichat] DavidHaley@MW: hrmph
[Mon Jun 22 16:22:40 2009] [Server01:ichat] DavidHaley@MW: basically, you were trolling :P
[Mon Jun 22 16:22:47 2009] [Server01:ichat] DavidHaley@MW: just without being offensive
[Mon Jun 22 16:23:44 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: lol, yes…I freely admit to it
[Mon Jun 22 16:24:04 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: I even crafted my original post to be laced with points I knew would be attacked
[Mon Jun 22 16:24:16 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: That's what happens when I get really, really, really bored - like I was on Saturday
[Mon Jun 22 16:26:37 2009] [Server01:ichat] Lyanic@Talon: Sadly, the thread is only a few replies short of the most ever for one I've created
23 Jun, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 60th comment:
So… Aren't you agreeing with me? What are you trying to say/argue/point out/make noise about/prove?
Random Picks
Sure, still waiting for the links to proof me wrong.
The article on race and intelligence should back up my claims, the one on intelligence and fertility should speak for itself. Proceed at own risk.
Studies into race and intelligence (egalitarian bias): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_in...
Studies into intelligence and fertility (hereditarian bias): http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Dysgeni...
Are you seriously arguing for Eugenics? Do you even understand what intelligence is on any level?
Quite apart from your spurious understanding of intelligence, the first article you provided is heavily in discussion and even argues against you. The second is pure biased speculation.
Seriously, you really aught to think hard before you carry on this discussion, because you have all the marks of someone racing headlong into the racist wall at full speed…