Re: IQ AND RACE? HUH?
Stephen Lajoie (lajoie@eskimo.com)
Mon, 6 Feb 1995 05:28:56 GMT
In article <3h26u0$49i@gemini.willamette.edu>,
Ian T Brown <ibrown@willamette.edu> wrote:
>In article <D3GIyF.Gnu@eskimo.com>, Stephen Lajoie <lajoie@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>In article <3grir6$4cj@clarknet.clark.net>,
>>Lord Zilch)@clark.net ( <thedavid> wrote:
>>>
>>It would seem that this "pale-Gentile bunch" are a bit more objective
>>than others, seeking only a level playingfield, while others have a
>>vested interest in special programs.
>
>Given the history of this "pale-Gentile bunch," your generalization isn't
>very believable.
The point being made, which would have been obvious if taken in context,
was that the "pale-Gentile bunch" who were supporting _The Bell Curve_
were not saying that they were the Master race. The evidence shows that
Asians have a higher average intelligence. This is pretty good evidence
of objective analysis on the part of the pale-gentiles; they did not
rant, rave, and make silly arguments to put themselves better or even
equal to the average intelligence of Asians.
>>>If you're out to prove you're (relatively?) "not too bright" please
>>>consider you've done so quite conclusively. Now shut the hell up!
>>>
>>>DAVID, White-Nigger-At-Large
>>>--
>>
>>Again, you overlook that difference between an individual and a population.
>>
>You do as well, with your statement that those in the "pale-Gentile
>bunch" are objective because they don't have any vested interests, but
>those that aren't can't be becuase they do.
Again, out of context. Why are the pale gentiles trying to put the Asians
on top of things? Maybe because they know that it doesn't matter!
--
--
Steve La Joie
lajoie@eskimo.com
|