Leaderboard

As far as this topic is concerned, your post is the only hateful one I've seen. For the individuals focusing on the reality of group IQ differences in this forum, I have yet to sense an inkling of "hate", "intolerance" or "spite". You wouldn't happen to be psychologically projecting, would you? And do forgive my insolent tone. I'm simply doing it to reflect the mirror of spite, hate and intolerance on your side ^.^ Interesting, in order to prove your assertion you turn to an analogy as opposed to science. Very interesting. Quote, "Ten years ago, a meta-analysis that examined the results from 26 imaging studies concluded that the correlation between IQ and brain volume is consistently in the 0.3-0.4 range". "Since it would be against human nature to admit defeat, scientists have crafted a third measure of brain size called the encephalization quotient, which is the ratio of actual brain mass relative to the predicted brain mass for an animal’s size (based off the assumption that larger animals require slightly less brain matter relative to their size compared to very small animals). By this metric, at least, humans come out on top, with an EQ of 7.5 far surpassing the dolphin’s 5.3 and the mouse’s measly 0.5.". https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter There is a 0.3-0.4 correlation between brain size and IQ. And as far as brain size relative to body mass is concerned, Humans are at the top. Meaning we've evolved to prioritize the development of the volume of the brain. More so than any other animal. Dear Philociraptor, please use science to validate your claims. As opposed to a half baked, monotonous analogy. Please research before opening your filthy mouth ^.^ As though natural selection would desire such an inefficient model. Laughable. In my experience individuals that accuse others of having no common sense suffer heavily from the Dunning Kruger effect. Have very little ability to suppress their underlying emotional triggers, and of course dogmatically arrive at a conclusion and justify this emotional conclusion with an ex post facto justification. How can it possibly be stupid for a warm blooded mammal to desire to maximize resource acquisition while expending the least amount of energy as possible? This doesn't sound very stupid... this line of reasoning seem to be in line with the nature of animals. Perhaps lazy, but certainly not stupid. Dear Philociraptor, why do you make these stupid assertions? It's rather unsightly. Hmm, and you now claim that theft isn't "actual" evil. Why do you continue to make such stupid statements? You wouldn't happen to be the grand son of McArthur Wheeler, would you? Ahh, and of course you claim that IQ is bs, which of course isn't an argument. Of course this isn't a proof of the invalidity of IQ, but McArthur Wheeler the third would deem it so. You use the term "racism" and don't expand any further. Perhaps you're new to debating. Or perhaps your grand father influenced you quite a bit. And of course the spawn McArthur would invoke Godwins law. Equating the scientifically validated understanding of IQ with Nazi's and sterilizations. In this thread you're the only one to invoke this law, you should feel honored. Truly, a magnificent specimen.... This is sarcasm dear Wheeler.... no need to get excited. McArthur, have you ever considered the possibility that we simply choose not to read your posts due to it's tiresome length? I've never encountered you on this forum but all of this is rather easy to rebut. You haven't disproven the century+ scientific data in relation to IQ. You simply invoked a simpleton's analogy and declared victory. I promise McArthur, we don't need to make you appear to be of the lower primate classes. You're doing such a splendid job that our contribution is truly superfluous. Ohh McArthur, why is it wrong to point out that there are group differences in IQ? A lot can be predicted through an analysis of IQ. Criminality, economic success, life expectancies etc,etc. Do tell my dear Ape..... I mean, McArthur, why is the supposedly wrong data on IQ so predicative of so many things? Is it a coincidence that there are no below 90IQ nations that have a very high human development index? So many coincidences, truly a mystery.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index "A survey of more than 2,000 people living in the UK has found that those with a higher IQ are more likely to live a longer life" https://www.sciencealert.com/smart-people-are-significantly-more-likely-to-live-longer-lives-study-finds Japan Avg IQ: 105. Japan Homicide rate: 0.31 per 100,000 inhabitants El Salvador Avg IQ: 80 El Salvador Homicide rate: 108.64 per 100,000 inhabitants. South Korea Avg IQ: 106. South Korea Homicide rate: 0.74 per 100,000 inhabitants. Jamaica Avg IQ: 71. Jamaica Homicide rate: 43.21 per 100,000 inhabitants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country Be careful what you wish for, when Whites left Detroit it went from being the crown Jewel of America, the Motor city to being a shit hole. Without a high IQ populous, carnage ensues. Hence why the safest places to live in America are also the places in which the population is dominated by Whites and Asians. Aka 100 and 104-106 IQ populi. Safest city in America? Irvine California Demographics? 100 IQ White: 65.2% 104 - 106 IQAsian: 32.3% 85 IQ Black: 1.8% 87 IQ Hispanic: 7.4% https://www.infoplease.com/us/california/demographic-statistics-84 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate You're rather arrogant for a simpleton McArthur Wheeler the Third. It may be best if you didn't stick around. And once more, do forgive my insolent tone and vulgarities. I'm simply playing Devil's advocate

LoL, yes, your anecdotal experience is how the entire industry operates. AIDs gets passed around the porn industry all the time. Heroine used moderately is also fine? promiscuity is also a bad thing. Being careless around bees is stupid, same with chainsaws, heavy machinery and wildlife in general. Sorry to be so patronizing, but the question up top isn't should we use force to prevent people from doing things we don't like, but is it moral. I'm guessing some people here think we should generally choose to eat healthy, but not use force against someone who has an extra burger. treating your body like crap is still wrong even if you don't steal the money, or beat people over the head with your salami.

I actually used to act and help produce porn when I was in college. None of you know what you are talking about. Nobody was on drugs or pressured or anything, nobody got any stds. Just because that is what you saw in a movie about porn doesn't make it true. Porn is not morally wrong or morally right, its indifferent. Like is eating ice cream a morally good activity or bad? When in excess it could be bad. But nobody is talking about doing something in excess. Most things in excess are bad. So the fact some people become addicted to porn is irrelevant. Simply watching porn once in awhile when you have nothing better to do... heck getting a quick nut off before going to sleep every night when you don't have a partner, whats the harm? What is the harm in having a scoop of ice cream sometimes? In fact, I think porn was very beneficial to my life, I learned how to have sex from porn and most women love how I have sex with them. Glad I didn't have to figure it out on my own or I wouldn't be such a good lover today.

The language of the universe is written in photons, as they are the tiniest amount of information transmitted from any place to another. I think constructions like Boss's post are poetic, but I would instead say Math being the language of the universe lends too much substance to an abstraction. One could say that the rules of math are solid and physical phenomena can be modeled with constructs that follow those rules, and that has led us to wonderful confirmed predictions in the past. In my experience, atheists don't ask the question in the original post. But since I don't hang with atheists that are collectivists, I'm not exactly dealing with the majority. The question I ear asked is "What evidence led you to believe what you believe?" and "What would convince you otherwise?"