Aurani wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Then provide evidence showing that IQ isn't an important factor in the academic achievements one can make and actually back up your wishful thinking.

Stop being so ignorant about your arguments. You don't need any evidence from him, unless you're utterly blind and can't look around yourself for 3 seconds. The majority of the population of Earth has average intelligence, yet they populate the most "highly rated" jobs. Intelligence not only isn't an important factor in the outcome of your education, but is in fact completely irrelevant. Memory and discipline play major roles there and nothing else.

Blitzfrog wrote:

You gotta define successful though
I.Q is so not important in the current world it's not funny
It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.
It's more about what family you're born than what brain you're given

Blitzfrog wrote:

It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.

kai99 wrote:

watching this atm

B1rd wrote:

I have a lot of porn of this character on my HDD.

B1rd wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

It's common knowledge that probably the smartest of us lives in slums without education.

No, it's just a liberal myth that there is a big untapped resource of smart people in poor areas. What family you're born into is one of the factors that goes into determining how smart you are.

Canadian Baka wrote:

is this thread like..... 5 posts per minute or something?@?@?@

Foxtrot wrote:

B1rd wrote:

I have a lot of porn of this character on my HDD.

I didn't pay 4 bucks for this, B1rd. Go back to natto and stop lewding the dragon loli

Foxtrot wrote:

Sorry I don't give money to individuals named Blitzfrog, my mom told me not to

well, technically I am giving money to peppy so mmmmhh

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Do you believe that IQ is entirely inherent and can't be changed throughout your life? This feels like an assumption made by most people.

I know that's part of the point of testing for IQ in the first place, but I'm pretty sure it's both a mix of nature AND nurture, like most things about people. I mean, there's two ways of looking at statistics:

Wow, look at all of these shit countries that test for incredibly low IQs (in the 60s, on average, for example). These people are, genetically, inherently inferior!

Wow, look at all these shit countries that test for incredibly low IQs. I wonder how that'd change if those people were put in much better environments- they'd probably rise a lot, given different circumstances!

One of them is a conclusion that's rather blindly stated (probably because superiority feels good to those people), the other one asks a question, more than anything.

Foxtrot wrote:

He made natto. That's pretty fucking rad to me

B1rd wrote:

Foxtrot wrote:

He made natto. That's pretty fucking rad to me

You and I, we're men of sublime taste.

btw, I have like, hundreds of pics of Sakuya I hand-picked from pixiv myself.

Foxtrot wrote:

Mmh, my lack of Sakuya pictures is worrying. Sure, please send me your goods whenever you have the time.

Blitzfrog wrote:

I agree with dad

I personally think intelligence is gained rather than genetically bounded. If you just cool your pride and think about it for a sec you will know what I'm saying

Railey2 wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

I agree with dad

I personally think intelligence is gained rather than genetically bounded. If you just cool your pride and think about it for a sec you will know what I'm saying

well, you're wrong.

intelligence has both an environmental and genetic component, as proven by countless studies on the subject.
if every single person from the slums was seperated from their environment and raised in a high income household environment, their iq's would most likely show the normal bell curve, centered around iq 100.

B1rd wrote:

nah

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zop12y6w96b3 ... 82f7a?dl=0

Blitzfrog wrote:

I meant not genetically bounded doesn't mean none of it is genetics....
Like seriously what part about a human isn't genetics...

B1rd wrote:

nah

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zop12y6w96b3 ... 82f7a?dl=0

Kisses wrote:

stick to shitposting pls blitzfrog

Railey2 wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

I meant not genetically bounded doesn't mean none of it is genetics....
Like seriously what part about a human isn't genetics...

Both environmental and genetic factors play a very big role, so i wouldn't want over- or understate the importance of either. When it comes to intelligence, genetics are VERY important.

B1rd wrote:

[
We were talking about individuals, but if you want to bring up demographics, then yes it is evident that IQ is related to race. Blacks in America have higher IQs than blacks in Africa, due to access to more education and more white genes, however it is still significantly lower than Whites, even controlling for socio-economic levels. Asians and Jews have higher IQ than Whites, Whites have higher IQ than Hispanics, Hispanics have higher IQ than Negroes, Negroes have a higher IQ than indigenous Australians. Given the same circumstances. Anti-racialists are also anti-objective ideologues who make any plausible excuse to deny the obvious conclusion.

In my opinion, considering I'm not a biologist, IQ is part nature and part nurture. Part of what determines your IQ is your genetics, the other part is your environment during your formative years. Once you're an adult however, like reaction speed, it's very hard to raise your IQ. Of course it's possible, considering that an IQ test is just a test of lots of different individual aspects, but you can't raise your IQ to the point you would surpass someone who was significantly more naturally gifted. Geniuses aren't made, they are born.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I think anti-racialists are probably more focused on what can actually be effected with new policy. If you say "Okay, X races are inferior IQ-wise, so they're just gonna be worse off and we should keep things the way they are", that's not exactly inviting progress- whereas the less conservative view is that regardless of the source of people's low IQ or other inequalities, work should be done to minimize that inequality where reasonably possible. So we should still try to make sure black people get an equal access to education as white people, even if they are inherently lower intelligence, or whatever.

I don't think it's really possible to control for socioeconomic factors when testing IQ comparisons between races though, considering how different their lives end up being as a result of race. Hopefully in the future we'll have a better answer to these kinds of things, if only for the sake of curiosity (since as said, non-conservatives' focus is on what can be done, rather than "people are this way", full stop)

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I don't think it's really possible to control for socioeconomic factors when testing IQ comparisons between races though, considering how different their lives end up being as a result of race. Hopefully in the future we'll have a better answer to these kinds of things, if only for the sake of curiosity (since as said, non-conservatives' focus is on what can be done, rather than "people are this way", full stop)

B1rd wrote:

It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.

Railey2 wrote:

is it really, though?

Sorting after income, education and occupation should get you really far already.
Certainly it won't be completely perfect, but in many cases it should be good enough?

Comfy Slippers wrote:

[image]

B1rd wrote:

It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.

Kisses wrote:

Canadian Baka wrote:

is this thread like..... 5 posts per minute or something?@?@?@

I know you are trying to make a joke but it really fails when it's visible that the post t prior to yours was made over 5 hours ago

Railey2 wrote:

Comfy Slippers wrote:

[image]

not controlled for socioeconomic factors.

B1rd wrote:

It is nothing but conceit and vanity to think that the social engineers have any power over natural reality. It is impossible to fix the underlying biological causes, distributing money from those who have earned it to those who have not does nothing to make the latter group more able, it makes them less able and less independent, and it is immoral. Forcing black kids who have neither desire nor ability through the education system is pointless. Enabling welfare queens to have dozens of kids in low-income neighborhoods does nothing but exacerbate the problem. This progressive crusade to create equality in an unequal world is nothing but a concerted denial of reality and a prodigal waste of resources. Liberty and equality are mutually exclusive.

You're definitely overestimating how big the biological differences are.

The ideal of equality doesn't mean that everyone should be equal, its about giving everyone equal chances. The liberal ideal pertains to the american dream as it was originally conceived: The equality of opportunity.
However this does not mean that everyone should simply be left to their own devices. Equality of opportunity can only be achieved when everything needed for a successful career is equally accessible to everyone:
- Transportation
- Education
- Health Care
- Housing
- etc.

That is what welfare should achieve.
Someone with iq 100 from a poor family should at least have somewhat similar opportunity compared to someone with iq 100 from a moderately wealthy family.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

If you say "Okay, X races are inferior IQ-wise, so they're just gonna be worse off and we should keep things the way they are", that's not exactly inviting progress- whereas the less conservative view is that regardless of the source of people's low IQ or other inequalities, work should be done to minimize that inequality where reasonably possible.

Blitzfrog wrote:

Define intelligence

Problem Solving?
Learning Speed?
Creativity?
Imagination?
Curiosity Level?
Concentration Abilities?
Or maybe all of those combined?

Well here is what the dictionary says:
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

This means applying known knowledge?
What about new knowledge?
How does one measure creativity and imagination abilities?

I'm sticking with the "the bigger the slider the smarter you are"

johnmedina999 wrote:

I want to agree with this but my experience with the horrible No Child Left Behind Act makes me want to think otherwise. Instead of trying to push the less-gifted kids into becoming as intelligent as the more gifted ones and having everyone be equal, we should be pushing the gifted kids into becoming even smarter. After all, these kids are our next doctors, scientists, astronomers, ect.

FuZ wrote:

Mara wrote:

hdrftghftgyujtgyikgyh

Mara wrote:

hdrftghftgyujtgyikgyh

Mara wrote:

hdrftghftgyujtgyikgyh

Hika wrote:

sara i want ur butthole???

kai99 wrote:

You cannot make a postshoot another soon after your last.

Blitzfrog wrote:

kai99 wrote:

You cannot make a postshoot another soon after your last.

Fact.

Blitzfrog wrote:

You cut in front of me

Sara I want your other hole

Hika wrote:

bitch im first in line wtf.

Foxtrot wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

You cut in front of me

Sara I want your other hole

you mean that hole on the ground i digged for you? neato

Hika wrote:

bitch im first in line wtf.

i don't trust you. you're probably just gonna shovel it like the cunt you are

Foxtrot wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

You cut in front of me

Sara I want your other hole

you mean that hole on the ground i digged for you? neato

kai99 wrote:

yeah ... let's just make that lewd and voila! the great wonders of ot is here.

dunno whether to feel proud or depressed

kai99 wrote:

no roast is ruined just like my life

johnmedina999 wrote:

Don't dig too deep, though!
.
.
.
.
.
You may hit a pipe or something.

Blitzfrog wrote:

kai99 wrote:

You cannot make a postshoot another soon after your last.

Fact.

Endaris wrote:

no

Blitzfrog wrote:

We need someone to do Stefan's job

Blitzfrog wrote:

Yo get tae in here

johnmedina999 wrote:

I'm always available. I can do Stefan's job and more if I'm elected OT president. I keep telling you I'm a great candidate but no one wants to vote for me.

Tae wrote:

Blitzfrog wrote:

Yo get tae in here

stop posting first

Jordan wrote:

I just saw a kind and polite comment exchange between two disagreeing people on youtube.

Crazy how nature do dat...