Well, thanks for giving us example #100 of you not reading or understanding even the cites you use.
But the context shows that I was not specifically referring to skin deep or some other physical differences between ethnicities, it was about the key problem of Murray, Sam, you and others: They continue to ignore that thinking that genes are the main factor that explains the differences in intelligence between races remains a racist idea. This is because there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes.
No, I haven’t read any of his books. I have listened to virtually all his own podcasts, some appearances on others’ podcasts, and some assorted videos.
The point was that your article mentioned that there were several contradictory studies about the genetic basis of race. Some found that race is a social construct with no genetic basis. And that was the point.
As for your repeating of it, you are then more incapable. That there are some genetic differences was not the point. The point was that, as Reich and many others said, that there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes. You are indeed tossing one of the guys that you think supported your ideas under the bus; but then again I have seen such behaviour coming from climate change deniers, creationists and other pseudo scientists when they find out that one of their cites, that they think is supporting them, is not as supportive of their racist views as they thought; once we look at their words closely.
GIGO, there is only so much slack I can cut you for your poor English skills. The Stanford writeup is in very clear English. Yet you not only stubbornly misunderstand it, you falsely and repeatedly insist the problem is with me.
In this case it is, my point was that other studies are out there that found that race is a social construct with no genetic basis. And that was noted in your cite, go fight with the ones that made it, not me.
But the most important point was that it was you who decided to be king obtuse. The acknowledgement that genes are still one factor with some differences among humans has been reported before by me and others like iiandyiii. The fact does remain that you are still wilfully ingoing that Murray and others are indeed racists for using genetics to support their sorry stereotypes because “there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes”.
And Sam is just like the scientists that fell for Uri Geller or Velikovsky.
You are amusing, GIGO, in how consistently you destroy your own arguments. You are going to stand by “incapable” and “naive” as synonyms? Why don’t you see if you can get any of your native-English-speaking buddies to cosign that one. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
And that again shows what a coward you are. You presented here more than three examples.
First, you are clearly avoiding the words we were talking about (that were actually incompetent and incapable) and you are going like in typical Sam Harris fashion for an item or word that was not a key one just to pretend you have a dazzling intellect instead of a dizzying one.
Second, you have a beef then with the makers of thesaurus.com just like with the ones that made the cite where you missed that it mentioned other research against it twice. And instead of sending them a note you think it is better to correct the one making the quote, not only a sign of cowardice but it is also a very pathetic and misleading move.
And thirdly, even more cowardice was demonstrated by you by wilfully ignoring that the quote that you repeated was in context a useless point, we already know about some genes that do are different among human groups, but that does not counter the point made many times already: as Reich reported, people like Murray do not have the genetic evidence to back up any of their racist stereotypes.
If “just to pretend you have a dazzling intellect instead of a dizzying one” is an original line and not something you copied from someone, you deserve credit: that’s a nice turn of phrase.
I’ll just chime into this handy Pit thread to say that it’s pretty shitty, and pretty cowardly, Slacker, of you to have said, multiple times in that “Sneering…” Elections thread, that I was factually incorrect about something, without actually showing me what I posted that you thought was factually correct. I like to learn and correct myself when I’m mistaken, but you aren’t giving me the chance. Or you couldn’t find anything I posted that was actually wrong, and you’re hiding and avoiding me like a scared kitten. If you couldn’t find anything, just say so. Or say you’re too lazy to find it. Or actually find it and show me.
Oh jeez, quit your whining. I was being lazy (I’m a slacker FFS) because it had gotten buried in a fast-moving thread. But I did end up going back and finding your earlier posts and I responded to them, before I saw this. So simmer down.
Sure, I’ll happily cosign that. It’s not the strongest cognitive synonymy, but it’s synonymy all the same.
Of course, it’s quite laughable how obvious it is that you don’t actually have a counter, and are so resorting to critiquing language. Well, we already knew you were a coward, nothing new there.
