Aw, fuck it. Might as well have some fun.
Why not? How do you know that?
Let’s try it this way: what relevance do you think it has?
No, let’s try it the other way. YOU opened your big yap and made a claim about my question. Now back it up, big mouth. Show me that intellectual rigor you think you have. Explain yourself.
You’re years and years too late.
You make a simple mistake. Consistently. You confuse the power you have as a mod with the power you have to debate well. It seems you even think yourself to be of above average intelligence. If you are, you are hiding it better than some ex-Nazi concentration camp guard hiding out in the open fro 70 years. Like hall monitors and rent-a-cops the world over, you have an amusingly high estimation of yourself.
At least it is amusing. So, thanks. 
Here’s the thing–there’s hundreds of ways to be wrong and only one way to be right. If you are really dispassionately interested in what your error is, explain why you think it has any relevance, and I will address that specific error.
I asked a question YOU made a claim, a rather rude one at that and for no apparent reason. But here it is:
[QUOTE=Evil Economist]
If you think this question has anything at all to do with the question of whether there is a genetic basis for IQ differences between races, then you are too fucking stupid to be participating in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Now, YOU explain yourself, big mouth.
OK, here’s the answer: your question has nothing at all to do with the question discussed in this thread. Happy?
Also, you don’t seem dispassionate, which I’m given to understand is a problem when you’re trying to do science.
Wrong, shithead. And when I show you that it does, via my answer to iiandyiiii, will you acknowledge your error?
Newsflash: just because a word strike you as new and shiny does not mean that it is new and shiny to others. You’re not very good at this logic thing, are you.
No need to answer that question.
You’re so lacking in dispassion. There’s a guy in this thread who would explain to you how that’s a bad thing when doing science, unless he’s some sort of hypocrite.
And if I show you that it has nothing to do with the topic in this thread, will you also acknowledge your error? Or is this like the dispassion thing, that only applies to other people?
10 years and 1 month.
You must have this Pitting confused with GQ, you racist shitstain. Fuck off with your transparent JAQing off.
Nitpick but it’s et al (nitpickier, it’s et al. because al. is an abbreviation for alii, aliae, or alia depending on the gender of the group you are referring to).
Anyway, to answer your question for myself, I have to honestly say I don’t know. I’m not a geneticist so what I know of genetic traits is second-hand at best. And as far as I’m aware there isn’t a clear consensus on the degree to which sexual preferences are genetic in origin. It could range anywhere from zero to a hundred percent although I’d consider both extremes unlikely.
:rolleyes: Uh, how about you answer the question? I’ll even help you: an appropriate answer will start with a “Yes” or “No”.
Hi, Dumb-dumb. 
Lucky for me, I guess, you guys have watered down the meaning of the word “racist” to take a great deal of the sting out of it.
Oh, and you may want to read the rules regarding the Pit.
Go suck/lick a Chief Pedant and variants.
Your junior-modding “racialist” ass can also go fuck a cactus.
OK; are you proposing that discrimination, negative media depictions and other possible obstacles are the reason that children from educated and wealthy black families (whose parents apparently overcame these obstacles and are now in a position to get their own children an optimal education using techniques from their own life experiences) barely perform on par with children from poverty-stricken and undereducated white families?
I remain underwhelmed by your reasons, and overwhelmed by the stark and persistent pattern of skillset outcomes.
Well your label of “racist” is an entirely arbitrary one applied, apparently, because I think biology has not been egalitarian in the distribution of eveolved and introgressed genes among descendant populations separated by historic migration patterns.
So you can say people like me are still around. As it turns out, science is creating more of them everyday as the proof for gene patterns becomes increasingly obvious.
But that’s not a reason, per se, that children from highly privileged black families show different average skillset outcomes for academic performance than do children from other self-identified groups who are severely underprivileged.
It’s just a label, absolutely empty of any actual explanatory value. For someone like me who aggressively supports race-alone AA preferences for academic advancement for blacks, it’s particularly empty of content. I can’t tell you how many admission committee meetings I’ve sat in where the entire thrust of the conversation is to how we can get black kids into and through medical school, for example. Ditto for me out in the workplace, where the same conversations take place about getting black candidates into the workplace and making sure the real racist barriers are removed.
So, in summary, you think the reason children from educated and wealthy black families underachieve academically is because they are going to jail? Or is there some other “racial prejudice” at play affecting their ability to learn and write exams? Your original contention was that it was incarceration rates, I believe.