Nobody’s running from the question. They’re saying there’s a definitive answer to the fucking question, and they’re pointing out that the people “just asking questions” are a mix of bigots and the scientifically illiterate.
I read it again. Still doesn’t make sense. It reads to me as follows: ‘If you know it’s true, but if you don’t know it’s true, should we suppress it?’
I don’t know how I can make a judgment call assuming something is true when I’m also assuming that it hasn’t been proven (and therefore, I can’t assume it is true). I don’t see how I can assume something is true when I’m also assuming it has not been proven.
Perhaps you can rephrase it.
This is the type of logical fallacy that underlies much of this thread, IMO.
It’s logically possible for racists to be right about specific things and for those who oppose them to be wrong about specific things. You can’t decide whether things are correct or incorrect based on whether they are being promoted by racists or by their opponents. But people do anyway.
Not that they usually admit it. But it comes through anyway, here and there. 
I would say “later”, either way.
I doubt if serious research is being done WRT this specifically, because anyone who discovered that there was some truth to the notion would be pilloried. (There’s a lot more basis for the notion that men’s and women’s brains differ, and Laurence Summers took a huge hit nonetheless.)
Initial studies of anything are very rarely conclusive and any time you see an article about some study that purports to prove some theory or other, there are invariably accompanying quotes from opponents of that theory claiming that the study was flawed for this reason or that - and if what was purported to be proved was race-based genetic differences in intelligence, it would be accompanied by howls of protests from people who would seize on the flaws or supposed flaws to prove that the researcher was a crank and a racist and so on. Not much in that. There are other areas that can be studied without that risk.
That said, if there was some truth to the notion, it’s possible that it would be proved by accident. Meaning that someone researching genetic bases of intelligence could show the genes that correlate for intelligence, and someone else researching genetic differences by ethnic group could show that that gene varied by ethnic group (possibly in reverse order). But it’s not like anyone is going to look for it.
I don’t think that’s true - at least not per this thread. My understanding is that no one is claiming there is a definitive answer. The only claim being made is that there’s no evidence of it. That’s not the same thing.
Has anyone done this science?
Let’s stop dodging the question. Evasive tactics doesn’t help the discussion at all.
***If ***it were someday scientifically proven that one category of people lagged behind other groups of people in certain areas, on average, due to genetics, and this information could potentially lead to discrimination or oppression, should such information be suppressed for the cause of good?
It is when you use those same groups in your arguments. when those groups are unrelated to actual genetics or population history.
The history of human population migrations is precisely the reason your racism is bunk.
So you have no idea what heritabilty is, actually, do you?
Nope, try again.
Nope, wrong again.
“We” do no such thing. You might, but then, if all you have is a hammer…
When you linked “genetics as a causative factor” with heritability.
Really? When has he said this? Or are you a RL “friend” of his :dubious:
But you feel free to spout your opinions on who’s right on this, all the same, don’tcha?
That’s an ad hominem fallacy.
That’s a better way of putting it, but it’s still not running from the question.
Calling people dumb along racial lines is cool, though.
Truth has nothing to do with ***who ***says it.
If racist assholes claim that 1 + 1 = 2, and their opponents claim that 1 + 1 = 6, then the racist assholes are correct on that issue.
If Adolf Hitler claimed that 1 + 1 = 2, and his opponents claimed that 1 + 1 = 6, then Hitler would be correct on that issue.
On the other hand people should have enough sense to notice when they’re keeping unsavory company.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=11230550
Sometimes facts or logic that do not require in depth knowledge of genetics can have a bearing on aspects of the question, and I’ve limited myself to such comments.
Right. But if the lack of evidence was coupled with a disinclination to look for evidence, then it’s running from the question. Hence my question earlier about whether anyone is looking.
[Note that I’m not agreeing with furt that there’s anything wrong with running from the question - I actually think if the answer came out “wrong” it could be harmful, as above. But as a factual matter, I believe people are running from the question. And the reason is because while there is currently no solid evidence of this, there is less certainty about what the ultimate answer might be than some people here would have you think. And people don’t want to find out the “wrong” answer.]
It would be ironic if someone actually did the research and it turned out in the end that there are genetic-based differences in intelligence but that blacks were smarter than whites.
With no evidence to support your position, we can disregard that.
You are really dumb, I did reply to your lack of substance, I did check and indeed your replies are only rhetoric, no evidence to show that the experts are indeed looking at actual genetic research; no, the context is clear, they are only doing intelligence research and making opinions about an unrelated field.
The point I made early about you being like a pseudo-scientist that is pumping up a misleading survey is then the correct assessment.
As others show, they have no problem following. And I already told other that my grammar is a crime against nature, but still many others agree that your ad hominem here is one of the most lamest one to make.
Thank you, now stop feeding your wrong wolf.
OK, I guess we’re done, then.
Only that history and social studies are one of the items I do have experience with and the truth is that the racist asshole Nazis were wrong wrong on this issue.
No, I would oppose suppressing accurate scientific information.
“Get over myself”. I’ll try. I give you credit; you didn’t ban me. That I’m dumb is an opinion. IQ tests (4 of them taken over a 45 year span) have shown I have an IQ of 136. No, that doesn’t mean I’m smart, but it belies the claim I’m dumb. Personal attacks such as yours are, however, an indication of a weak argument. Or an oversensitivity to criticism, likewise. “Acting like a teenager” is also a slam. Maybe you should get over yourself. Oh, what’s your IQ ? I know, you’re gonna’ say that’s irrelevant. I say it’s not. If yours is higher than 136, then you will deem it relevant. And no, I’m not lying. 136 puts me in the top 2%, which I don’t think is anything worth bragging about. Intelligence is hard to define and many a dumb person has had their moments of brilliance. Likewise, smart people sometimes say dumb things. I’m reminded of this fact every time I log-on, here.
Now that was a very underwhelming reply.
And the return key must be broken.
You’re failing. What’s more pathetic than bragging about your IQ online? Claiming a high IQ (like you’re the only one) is not an adequate response to my statement that you’re being dumb, like you said, and how are you supposed to prove it if I don’t believe you?
And maybe learn how this forum works. That way you won’t have to bother with this empty bluster about getting banned.
It’s my opinion.
Oh, I am beginning to understand how this forum works; and how it does not. Most of you are Social Darwinists, a well-respected pile of manure among the well-placed.
I’m not looking for inclusion. Not here, anyway. Bragging ? That is the expected response. Well, I’ve given mine. Are others too disdainful of IQ tests to reveal theirs ? Hard to believe. No, I cannot prove my claim. I don’t care what others think about that.