Yeah, but you’re not white so you probably already live in a ghetto where housing properties are worth a 40 and a dime bag of weed.
Well that’s because this is an old fogeys board. You need to go where cool young hip racists hang out. I thinking Facebook might be a good place to start.
Ahh, and finally we come to the quintessential Liberal Excuse for black underachievement. The ultimate unfalsifiable reversal of cause and effect. Blacks underachieve because there are racists out there who believe it’s in their nature.
Do you have the address of that ghetto handy?
I ain’t giving that out. If I did all you people would be moving into my neighborhood and taking all my 40s and weed.
Probably it seems that way to you because you are in the habit of ignoring evidence or arguments which contradict your beliefs.
Possibly. Of course, it’s also possible that rather than ignoring it, I simply can’t find it, because you haven’t posted it. Post #2678 gave you a nice opening to restate your position with evidence and arguments and you chose, instead, to blow her off.
I’ve posted many arguments in this thread, not just my main argument. I also have a blog post which outlines my main argument for why I think the racial intelligence gap is largely genetic in cause. If you really want to see my argument, I am happy to give you a link.
Apparently it’s in Smurf Village though.
I don’t want a link. I want you to post it in this thread, right here so that we can all read a nice abstract of your beliefs with documentation and evidence all neatly contained in one post and not spread everywhere.
No, that’s not what “political correctness” means, though people of all over the political spectrum–yourself included–have posited that mistaken meaning, because it’s an easy, simple-minded way to claim self-righteousness.
Do you see how you make these little “jumps”? One minute you’re talking about some races having a different average IQ, the next you’re saying that most black people perform poorly – a much, much stronger claim.
You slip into the latter kind of language constantly because this is really about superiority. Or at least, you want to look at a black person and believe that you know them – “He’s probably an idiot”. But you can’t do that – even if there is a difference on average, all you can say is “He’s probably not particularly bright nor particularly dim, like most people of any race”.
If and when such genes are found then surely we would find them in every population (surely you are not going to say there are no stupid or violent white people)? It still wouldn’t give you any reason to divide based on “race”.
I mean, hypothetically, if we were to make a big deal about such genes and didn’t care about liberty, then we might flag everyone with the crime gene on a police database, say.
Why would we even care which “race” had a higher incidence of the gene? If we found blonde white people had a higher incidence that dark-haired whites, does that mean we should lock up all blondes, or assume they are criminals until proven innocent?
I already posted my argument in this thread. And my argument is laid out on my blog. If you can’t be bothered to invest the minimal energy required to read the blog post or go through this thread, I’m certainly not going to spend time repeating my (main) argument.
You realize this thread is 2500+ posts long? I already went through 150 of them looking for an argument by you and came up with zilch. If you’re not going to bother posting it again, I’m not going to bother assuming you actually have one.
I would guess the answer would depend on whether or not NDD has light or dark hair. Whatever he’s not or is, would determine how people are treated.
So what? The polite thing to do is to read through a thread before claiming something is missing. I’ve spent a lot of energy making posts in this thread and it’s very rude of you to jump in late in the game and ask me to re-post something from earlier in the thread so that you can avoid the trouble of reading it.
Anyway, I offered you a simple alternative, which is to read my blog post which outlines my main argument. But apparently you can’t even be bothered to request and click on a simple link.
He said “can be defined,” not “is defined.” 
Surely somewhere within the bowels of this thread, your argument exists, no? Why can’t you link to that? Why must the link be to a hitherto unmentioned blog post? And when a thread is this large, no it’s not rude to come in and ask for a recap, because the thread is fucking huge. So, make with the argument or take your abuse.
So I take it this is something you won’t **stand **for? 
And you better not lay off the BBQing! If nothing else I can enjoy the fumes.
Because I don’t feel like wading through the thread looking for it.
I’m not the one who is jumping into a thread without reading it and asking for people to repost (or link to) stuff they already posted.
Because it’s easy for me to find.
And now a question for you:
Why is it that you do not want to click on a link and read a short blog post in which my (main) argument is laid out?
Because this is a message board, not a post links to other websites in lieu of making posts board.