Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?
Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com)
Sun, 5 Feb 1995 18:20:25 GMT
In article <3h1125$881@clarknet.clark.net>,
Lord Zilch)@clark.net ( <thedavid> wrote:
>Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: In article <3grtrn$nun@clarknet.clark.net>,
>: Lord Zilch)@clark.net ( <thedavid> wrote:
>: >William Wilson (wswilso1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >: In <3grir6$4cj@clarknet.clark.net> thedavid (Lord Zilch)@clark.net ()
>: >: writes:
>
>{snippety-snip}
>
>: You offer no proof, no argument, just your personal opinion. And you call
>: that an argument? You feel that we should accept this as rebuttal to a
>: 800 page book and years of statistical data?
>
>YES, I DO.
Then we will have to consider your comments as worthless as your
arguments.
> Any given 800 page book using years of statistical data only
>proves that, besides the benefits of money & influence, the authors went
>to a lot of trouble to produce inferior toilet paper.
But you haven't refuted it. You have no argument. At least others have
the decency to state a logical position, however absurd. You don't even
do that.
>Hitler, I might add, also wrote a book.
And you write on the Usenet. The merits of each are subject to the
judgement of reasonable people. I doubt that the rest of us are going to
take your unreasoned word for gospel like Moses coming down from the
mountain.
>: What is amusing, it that you feel good about this.
>
>Actually I don't. I'd rather use Scot Tissue--it's got 1,000 sheets per
>roll and it's only 69 cents.
Humm. I think you are about to become KILL file fodder if you don't start
producing statements that have merit.
>: >[more snippin']
>: >
>: >THEN you said:
>: >: (SUMMARY OF THIS POSTING)
>: >: This is a standard argument:
>: >: IQ doesn't exist!
>: >: But if it did, I'd be smarter than you!
>: >: (HOW'S THAT FOR LOGIC!?)
>: >
>: >My response: HAHAHAHA!!! Sorry, but if you mean to debate me you'd
>: >better dust off your thinking cap first.
>
>: Not a very good rebuttal. You are proud of that?
>
>Hey buddy, it's not like we're discussing anything IMPORTANT here!
>
>: >I SAID (implicitly in my
>: >first post on this subject, explicitly a few lines ago) that IQ _does_
>: >measure _something_, but that correlating that "something" with skin
>: >color is really one helluva stretch. And quite ILLOGICAL to boot.
>
>: The correlation has been statistically proven. The argument centers now
>: on it's source being genetic or environmental. I believe the opposition's
>: position is that it is attributed to physical, cultural, and racial
>: prejudice.
>
>Cf. my previous quote (which could be by Mark Twain) on "statistics."
>
>: >: BTW, how many times do you have to take an IQ test before you can use
>: >: words like "consistently" when referring to your scores. For someone
>: >: who has no faith in IQ you seem quite committed to it.
>: >
>: >Hmm...I'm 32 and started taking those damn things in 2nd grade. And
>: >when I found I did well--and that all these adults around me made such
>: >a fuss about how well I did!--I took them every chance I could get.
>: >I dimly recall being around 10 and taKing four _different_ IQ tests in
>: >a WEEK, including a couple specifically designed to _exclude_ "honky"
>: >cultural influences.
>
>: You do realize, of course, that the IQ test they give to kids is a test
>: that is normed around mental age, and those given to adults is one a
>: distribution of the entire adult population normed around a score of 100.
>
>SO? Is that why I was "stupider" at 31 than at 13, IQ-wise? Yes, I know
>that. You don't have a point until you prove that IQ tests MEAN anything!!!
I have no idea why you became more "stupider" at 31 than at 13. I don't
care to speculate about it, either, because you are not the subject of
this thread. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread about why you
became stupider.
>: Your racial slur is a keen indicator of your attitude.
>
>Another quote: "We got to kill the white people, we got to make 'em hurt"
>(Eddie Murphy, Saturday Night Live, sometime in the mid-'80s)
Ah! I see, you want to commit genocide against European Americans. Now you
discredit yourself. I think the term you used was NAZI. Yes, this shows
you have more in common with the Nazis then the people you call Nazi.
>: Ah, Mensa. Yes. I've known many of very intelligent people who ended up
>: flipping burgers because things came to easy for them, and they never
>: learned to work. They were quite sucessful at finding women with "nice
>: boobs", however.
>
>Once again, your point is...what? That it's better to have a LOW IQ?
No, that there is a correlation between success and IQ, but that IQ does
not guarantee success. There are a number of environmental influences. My
own personal experience leads me to believe that for some people, things
come to easy for them, and they never learn to deal with frustration and
having to work until they get to grad school.
But, then I haven't had a great deal of success at looking for women with
"nice boobs", and apparently you have. Somehow, breast size was never an
important issue with me. I look for character and friendship.
>: >Now, will the NEXT nazi goliath come front-&-center? My SO is busy tonight.
>
>: This is a troll, right? If your argument is to call people a nazi, then they
>: can refute your "argument" by calling you a name?
>
>Nope. It's my actually opinion. I call 'em as I see 'em, bub.
>
>: Nah, I don't want to lower myself to your level.
>
>How WHITE of you!
Nah. There's a newsgroup for name calling. alt.flame. This is not that
newsgroup.
> David
--
--
Steve La Joie
lajoie@eskimo.com
|