assassin_696

Except he's pointed towards the fact that the specific genes that underpin intelligence might be discovered in 10-15 years time. I appreciate socio-economics status plays a part, but for him speaking as a geneticist it's entirely relevant.

But what about when you try and justify faith with empirical evidence?

Before anyone else passes judgement on James Watson, read this article/interview with him taken from The Sunday Times Magazine that should clear things up: And on the issue of black/white intelligence...

Sorry it's a bit messy, but i've merged these two related threads.

Okay, this is definitely a rant, but when you're ranting at people posting on your rant, and they're ranting back at you your rant starts to turn into a flame-fest. So, locked.

Well, that was strangely compelling.

Just to remind you all that I haven't got any pm's from you yet, looking to maybe kick this thing off soon. :)

Middleman - Bright Eyes

It may be a minor one, but I see this as more of a suggestion than a rant. I know it's a bit of both but I think this'll be more effective here.

Peter's storyline is the most interesting one, simply because his powers are so damn cool.

How long are you gonna keep this up? The irony is unbearable. Actually thinking about it the irony really is phenomenal. But anyway.

Flamecaller, if the OP linked to an article that showed conclusive scientific studies that showed white people were on average genetically smarter than black people, or vice versa, would that still be racist? Stop being such a drama queen.

Methinks this was locked in General for a reason. However weak the analogy, the fact remains that you're asking for some kind of discussion relating a game to drugs. That's not really the kind of context you want drugs to be discussed in. Locked.

It's a common misconception that capitalism somehow favours monopoly corporations like Microsoft or oiligarchs, when really, by dominating the market they're not really encouraging free enterprise and competition.

Because ghosts are really suggesting something a lot different than aliens. The reason so many are inclined to believe other life is out there is just because of the shear mathematical probability that there is other planets supporting of life out there, and likewise at least some that has life on them. It's difficult to compare ghost and aliens by the mathematical probability of them to exist. However, I'd say that there are probably more witnesses who claim they've seen ghosts rather than aliens. What I'm addressing is those who say they don't believe in ghost because they've never seen any. I just doubt they've seen any aliens either. The difference is, ghosts suggest something supernatural, outside nature and science, whereas aliens are just other life forms on another planet. I'm not saying they've visited us, in fact they almost certainly haven't, but if I was a betting man i'd put a lot of money on there being some other kind of life out there.

We can all quote personal anecdotes about clever black people that we know all we like (I know several) and you'd still be taking the remark out of context. The man is a scientist, believe it or not he doesn't have any personal grudges, but he does have a heck of a lot of genetic science under his belt, and so it's a hypothesis that he's done some research on which he's commenting on, not some personal grudges. Humans are not born blank slates, some people are naturally better at certain things than other people. As for the science behind it, I don't know, but what if on average black people did score lower in tests than white people? Or vice versa? You can't maintain a false pretence of political correctness just for the sake of it when the facts show otherwise. Nor did Watson say that every single black person is less intelligent than every single white person. It's a hypothesised average. He's controversial only because he's letting facts speak for themselves, instead of doctoring results in order to not offend. I have a lot of respect for this guy for standing up for what his research has shown him, not some personal grudges.

I'd agree with you, if the statistics didn't actually that in place like the UK and Australia where gun-ownership is legal, relative gun crime is a lot lower. A lot of gun crimes and incidences are not shootouts between armed criminals and vigilante civilians, but ordinary people getting carried away.

I listened to all the old Ricky Gervais ones with Karl Pilkington, they were hilarious. At the moment I listen to the Point of Inquiry podcast and Russell Brand.

Wow, you really are as arrogant as ever. Have you ever really thought about the ever side of the argument? Or do you like your lethal weapons too much? What on earth would you ever have to defend yourself from? Stop living in your action film world where you'll be invaded by China tomorrow and need to take to the streets in your Hummer's with your military issue weapons. The world doesn't work like that, America least of all. Your government has way too many failsafes for you to ever have to defend yourselves from some kind of tyrannical President, there's no way that could happen. This isn't the frontier days anymore.

Yeah, I mean God forbid anyone should ever limit the sale of a lethal weapon to some people, you might actually go out at night.

Ironically, I find eastern philosophy and practices too artificial for me. It seems too abstract and too detached from what we are for me.

I don't get it, what's the problem? You can still own a BB gun, it just can't look like a real gun, what's the problem with that?

10 years? No way hos̮̩̉̉. They've still got a long way to go to start rivalling the power of the USA. Apparently, the next big problem will be when they can consider taking over Taiwan.

Spontaneously happy (yet regretful). The engineering day was pretty good actually, and i've got rid of my man flu. The regret? Ah that's a long story, but like all good stories, it involves a girl... :wink:

That's a very hard question to answer. Because for me, the issue is, where do you draw the line? No one has any objection to high performance energy drinks before an event, but drugs which take it to the next level are illegal. I think in sport it should be illegal, the drugs are too dangerous and it keeps the sport's and athlete's integrity. But what if there was a drug/steroid that didn't have the nasty side-effects but did boost your performance? As a general rule I wouldn't be against someone taking that for personal gains, in fact i'm going to read a book soon called Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case For Making Better People, in which the author argues in favour of using (safe) performance enhancing drugs (amongst other things). I kind of agree with him, but i'll be interested to see what arguments he has.