Welfare litters aren't based on sanity but greed without accountability, which ironically is moralized for that socioeconomic bracket. Only those sanely seeking profit particularly care to police their own breeding. Besides, your totalitarian hell wouldn't survive a generation of people having minds of their own. Who cares to live on the basis of mere survival? Not most potential technocrats, which you'd require, unless you want to subsist as only a slightly updated stone age culture. Rather against the point of being people instead of surrendering the biomass to amoeba, but that might explain why you think it'd survive. It'd require mind-control: goodthink, crimethink, minitrue, miniluv etc. You'd have to depersonalize each person. Their psyches would be mere tools to make the meaningless pattern that'd pass for human culture. Rather prefer microbial cultures. A more honest and efficient means of sustaining mere biomass for its own sake.
Ironic, since you can't censor religion, despite explicitly intending to be violently offensive in many parts and smugly bigoted in most (of the surviving popular ones, natch).
They're more ignorant than hypocritical in history-related contexts, despite bitching about theological study being historical study. Try celebrating Easter for realz. Other than not going to church, they probably wouldn't get much conceptual difference. Think open-air/nature services and restorative/spring themes particularly. They'll throw a fit when you start talking about a goddess named Easter though. Actually...they might start calling your group a church and accuse you of copying them just for having any kind of religious meet-up. The ones I grew up under certainly would.
Funny, I've never felt "like a man" and never managed to get anyone to describe such without using language like "real man" to try to shame me into some transitive cultural stereotype that had nothing to do with my biology.
Do you have even one brain scan show neural dimorphism in the "wrong" body? Someone who likes to play with cultural props and learned behaviors doesn't constitute a member of the associated sex. "Flamboyant" gay males nowadays get called "effeminate" for acting with strange mannerisms most females never do, and things like cars are called "sexy" without having to be sexually arousing to anyone, so I'm not taking pop culture's word for shit, especially in this context.
I didn't make the case he was referring to nor did he provide crushing evidence of anything when the majority of evidence contradicts his claims. He's fucking incoherent. The modern Standford-Binet doesn't even work like he claims and along with the WAIS is very well regarded. They're used to identify mental disability for legal purposes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Another study in Gene Expression Magazine entitled "Intercourse and Intelligence" confirms this data, citing research that shows a bell-shaped relationship between IQ scores and sex.
According to the research, an adolescent with an IQ score of 100 was 1.5 to 5 times more likely to have had intercourse than an adolescent with an above average score of about 120 to 130.
We could assume they're more likely to be asexual, but I'd doubt that. Fluff sells, not brains.
The study at Wellesley also broke the research down by majors. It found that no studio art majors were virgins while 72% of biology majors and 83% of biochemistry and math majors were virgins.
That jives with the negative correlation of fecundity with intelligence and the negative correlation of attractiveness with high intelligence. Goodthink's attractive since sexuality heavily biases bellyfeel. Targeted reversal of this causality's also a prime propaganda tactic thus sexualized politics a la selling women by solidarity (AKA chauvinism) then leaving the resulting cockblocking to drag the men along. Ironic that "universal positivity" is so massively negative in implications.
Actually since the Flynn effect didn't alter ethnic differences, it verified that nurture failed to trump nature, which is flagrantly counter to your claim. Also, you Binet sermon's just genetic fallacy added to weasel words. Who "established that IQ tests are terrible measure of innate intelligence" and how exactly? IQ testing has certainly been updated since the long defunct original Standford-Binet test intended for predicting academic potential, and is far more robust than your reduction. Wechsler tests among others are different batteries for different indications, and the stats hold over large populations with a great many correlations over decades of study, regardless of your dislike.
There's a greater correlation with certain professions involving ranges into ~140. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co... As for dating, having an IQ over 110 negatively correlates with attraction to women regardless of her IQ, which has lovely implications. Below 110, the guy only being 10 points higher or less than the girls helps. Entertainment_value_to_women!=intelligence despite the propaganda/shaming tactic. Of course, the fecundity of the IQ=<100 range is just fun to think about. *twitch* Idiots preferentially breeding's a strangely sacrosanct topic, which couldn't possibly be linked to majoritarianism or sheeplefarming...
FTR, science isn't limited to your knee-jerk "ant-racist" dogma, so you might want to stop making really stupid assumptions and pretend their magically scientific. Most researchers admittedly avoid the topic, precisely due to it being political suicide. Plenty even claim such research is unethical, which amounts to demanding not only ignorance but allowing dogma to pretend to be the facts of the matter. Kinda hard to do real science with you lot interjecting your articles of faith and political threats.
Ah, pretentiously dogmatic sense of open-mindedness. You sure got me with your PC echo. Just ignore the Asians and Caucasians consistently retained relatively higher scores, or the Flynn effect specifically reversing in Caucasians countries with immigrants of certain ethnic groups. Genetics isn't open to your values. It's ultimately physics and doesn't fucking care how you feel about it. Some larger, some are stronger, some are smarter, and nature defines all potential. Nurture just softly plays within nature's hard limits.
Historical eugenics was based on idiot politicians making pseudo-scientific claims. IQ has demonstrated a majority genetic basis. Hand-waving the evidence based on PC majoritarian dogma is precisely the hypocritically pretentious stupidity behind historical eugenics. Genes work. Breeding works. It's rarely done properly due to politics, whether state or petty/social. We got enough idiots shitting litters they can't pay for nor think should have to. What's your problem with private individuals having dating preference involving intelligence instead of standardized cultural bullshit that's too shallow to even qualify as proper sophistry?
Don't be silly. The Secret is mindless belief so say the average and below believers, and they're in control, so they must be right. Don't make them prove it by popularity or violence. That's not smart...
Yeah, even when they called themselves "people" in their own language as opposed to what they called everyone else (the not/none people). Totally not offensive, there.
Funny thing, nigger was just a British slang word derived from French nègre, like lots of English, which came from Spanish negro, which came down from Latin niger. It just meant dark/black. The Brits had to be told less than a century ago that is was supposedly derogatory. They didn't know because it wasn't. Ironically, colored was primarily used in the US as "polite" only because it was a proper English word not because of any difference in meaning/usage.
Violently abusive chauvinistic rapists with no accountability despite all their wangsting? I never envision that. It's that's the norm that would explain the self-flagulating manginism though.
And worthless if that stuff for IDing sources of explosive components is anything to go on (which I'm not even sure if this isn't the same stuff just with an attempt at a wider sell...). It becomes useless when it eventually gets everywhere, aside from potential cellular toxicity.
Nah, they'll just break some of our necks since one size doesn't fit all. My head touches the ceiling right above the windshield. The airbag won't catch my head, just suddenly moving my body in unpleasant relation to it, particularly for my neck... Then there's short people who get it more direct if their head tilts too far forward before the bag goes off. They have issues. Note: "If you are short, elderly or have a very old vehicle, you can purchase an airbag on/off switch or pedal extensions".
Slashdot Mirror
Welfare litters aren't based on sanity but greed without accountability, which ironically is moralized for that socioeconomic bracket. Only those sanely seeking profit particularly care to police their own breeding. Besides, your totalitarian hell wouldn't survive a generation of people having minds of their own. Who cares to live on the basis of mere survival? Not most potential technocrats, which you'd require, unless you want to subsist as only a slightly updated stone age culture. Rather against the point of being people instead of surrendering the biomass to amoeba, but that might explain why you think it'd survive. It'd require mind-control: goodthink, crimethink, minitrue, miniluv etc. You'd have to depersonalize each person. Their psyches would be mere tools to make the meaningless pattern that'd pass for human culture. Rather prefer microbial cultures. A more honest and efficient means of sustaining mere biomass for its own sake.
Ironic, since you can't censor religion, despite explicitly intending to be violently offensive in many parts and smugly bigoted in most (of the surviving popular ones, natch).
They're more ignorant than hypocritical in history-related contexts, despite bitching about theological study being historical study. Try celebrating Easter for realz. Other than not going to church, they probably wouldn't get much conceptual difference. Think open-air/nature services and restorative/spring themes particularly. They'll throw a fit when you start talking about a goddess named Easter though. Actually...they might start calling your group a church and accuse you of copying them just for having any kind of religious meet-up. The ones I grew up under certainly would.
Funny, I've never felt "like a man" and never managed to get anyone to describe such without using language like "real man" to try to shame me into some transitive cultural stereotype that had nothing to do with my biology.
Do you have even one brain scan show neural dimorphism in the "wrong" body? Someone who likes to play with cultural props and learned behaviors doesn't constitute a member of the associated sex. "Flamboyant" gay males nowadays get called "effeminate" for acting with strange mannerisms most females never do, and things like cars are called "sexy" without having to be sexually arousing to anyone, so I'm not taking pop culture's word for shit, especially in this context.
I didn't make the case he was referring to nor did he provide crushing evidence of anything when the majority of evidence contradicts his claims. He's fucking incoherent. The modern Standford-Binet doesn't even work like he claims and along with the WAIS is very well regarded. They're used to identify mental disability for legal purposes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Well, there's no dialogue with you between your strawmen and handwaving. Your prompt immediate upvoters are a nice touch too...
Just don't use it for strength training or bodybuilding. Haphazard routines full of buzzwords don't work for either purpose.
Another study in Gene Expression Magazine entitled "Intercourse and Intelligence" confirms this data, citing research that shows a bell-shaped relationship between IQ scores and sex.
According to the research, an adolescent with an IQ score of 100 was 1.5 to 5 times more likely to have had intercourse than an adolescent with an above average score of about 120 to 130.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/a...
We could assume they're more likely to be asexual, but I'd doubt that. Fluff sells, not brains.
The study at Wellesley also broke the research down by majors. It found that no studio art majors were virgins while 72% of biology majors and 83% of biochemistry and math majors were virgins.
That jives with the negative correlation of fecundity with intelligence and the negative correlation of attractiveness with high intelligence. Goodthink's attractive since sexuality heavily biases bellyfeel. Targeted reversal of this causality's also a prime propaganda tactic thus sexualized politics a la selling women by solidarity (AKA chauvinism) then leaving the resulting cockblocking to drag the men along. Ironic that "universal positivity" is so massively negative in implications.
Was the irony of that reply intentional?
Actually since the Flynn effect didn't alter ethnic differences, it verified that nurture failed to trump nature, which is flagrantly counter to your claim.
Also, you Binet sermon's just genetic fallacy added to weasel words. Who "established that IQ tests are terrible measure of innate intelligence" and how exactly?
IQ testing has certainly been updated since the long defunct original Standford-Binet test intended for predicting academic potential, and is far more robust than your reduction. Wechsler tests among others are different batteries for different indications, and the stats hold over large populations with a great many correlations over decades of study, regardless of your dislike.
There's a greater correlation with certain professions involving ranges into ~140. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.co... As for dating, having an IQ over 110 negatively correlates with attraction to women regardless of her IQ, which has lovely implications. Below 110, the guy only being 10 points higher or less than the girls helps.
Entertainment_value_to_women!=intelligence despite the propaganda/shaming tactic.
Of course, the fecundity of the IQ=<100 range is just fun to think about. *twitch*
Idiots preferentially breeding's a strangely sacrosanct topic, which couldn't possibly be linked to majoritarianism or sheeplefarming...
FTR, science isn't limited to your knee-jerk "ant-racist" dogma, so you might want to stop making really stupid assumptions and pretend their magically scientific. Most researchers admittedly avoid the topic, precisely due to it being political suicide. Plenty even claim such research is unethical, which amounts to demanding not only ignorance but allowing dogma to pretend to be the facts of the matter. Kinda hard to do real science with you lot interjecting your articles of faith and political threats.
Ah, pretentiously dogmatic sense of open-mindedness. You sure got me with your PC echo. Just ignore the Asians and Caucasians consistently retained relatively higher scores, or the Flynn effect specifically reversing in Caucasians countries with immigrants of certain ethnic groups. Genetics isn't open to your values. It's ultimately physics and doesn't fucking care how you feel about it. Some larger, some are stronger, some are smarter, and nature defines all potential. Nurture just softly plays within nature's hard limits.
As opposed to "shit tests" and "game"?
Since when? The majority of people geekshame basic math skills.
Historical eugenics was based on idiot politicians making pseudo-scientific claims. IQ has demonstrated a majority genetic basis. Hand-waving the evidence based on PC majoritarian dogma is precisely the hypocritically pretentious stupidity behind historical eugenics. Genes work. Breeding works. It's rarely done properly due to politics, whether state or petty/social. We got enough idiots shitting litters they can't pay for nor think should have to. What's your problem with private individuals having dating preference involving intelligence instead of standardized cultural bullshit that's too shallow to even qualify as proper sophistry?
Don't be silly. The Secret is mindless belief so say the average and below believers, and they're in control, so they must be right. Don't make them prove it by popularity or violence. That's not smart...
Reality is politically incorrect, thus observation is unethical.
Yeah, even when they called themselves "people" in their own language as opposed to what they called everyone else (the not/none people). Totally not offensive, there.
Funny thing, nigger was just a British slang word derived from French nègre, like lots of English, which came from Spanish negro, which came down from Latin niger. It just meant dark/black. The Brits had to be told less than a century ago that is was supposedly derogatory. They didn't know because it wasn't. Ironically, colored was primarily used in the US as "polite" only because it was a proper English word not because of any difference in meaning/usage.
Violently abusive chauvinistic rapists with no accountability despite all their wangsting? I never envision that. It's that's the norm that would explain the self-flagulating manginism though.
And worthless if that stuff for IDing sources of explosive components is anything to go on (which I'm not even sure if this isn't the same stuff just with an attempt at a wider sell...). It becomes useless when it eventually gets everywhere, aside from potential cellular toxicity.
And be a pretentious conformist shill because their nothing more mature than proud subordination to self-defined authorities, these days.
Nah, they'll just break some of our necks since one size doesn't fit all. My head touches the ceiling right above the windshield. The airbag won't catch my head, just suddenly moving my body in unpleasant relation to it, particularly for my neck... Then there's short people who get it more direct if their head tilts too far forward before the bag goes off.
They have issues. Note: "If you are short, elderly or have a very old vehicle, you can purchase an airbag on/off switch or pedal extensions".