Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.
J Lopez (email@example.com)
13 Feb 1995 11:42:23 -0500
In <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Ian T Brown) writes:
>Discriminated against? Remember that a disportionate number of our
>presidents have been left-handed (in fact, Bush, Clinton, and Perot are
>ALL left-handed). Serious discrimination would probably not allow so
>many of the discriminated-against minority to achieve power. On the
>other hand, maybe this only strengthens the argument for left-handed
You're perpetuating one of the fundamental misunderstandings about
genetic superiority. Insofar as it can be said to exist, it constitutes
one thing: fitness, i.e. a greater than average ability to perpetuate
one's own genetic complement. So if left-handers are having more kids,
then they are "superior." Otherwise, not.
>>Then again, left-handers have shorter life-spans, too, and I believe a
>>higher incidence of clinical depression and insanity. Another
>>strike against the argument that "greater intelligence" equals "genetic
>Wait, that argument isn't gone yet!!! Much of the high left-handed
>mortality rate can be attributed to accidents caused by a right-hand
That matters not. If lefties can't adapt to their environment then by
definition they are genetically inferior.
>It's a _society_ that's 85 or 90 percent right-handed
>which refuses to recognize the legitimate needs of Left-Handed-Americans
>that causes the clinical depression and insanity. Left-handers unite!!!
Yes, if we can change the environment that is one way to increase our
fitness. But, for every pair of left-handed scissors out there, there
are 100 products like the HP OmniBook series.
SCREW YOU Hewlett-Packard!!!
jlopez :: "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost
total reference to Harold Robbins?" --Willy Russell