Hi

Genome sequencing and geneticists have some news for you all

Meant:
expression of emotions

yeah, your fine. most people will disagree with you when it comes to social democracy though, but you're allowed to be in disagreement here, just be prepared to defend yourself. expect a lot of accusations that you killed rosa luxemburg, and that real communism doesn't exist because of you, and your ideology is stupid because in 1955 social democracy proved it doesn't work because of some event or whatever.

You're already a better contributor than anarkiddies.

Two through four. Our user count spontaneously jumps by around a hundred every now and again.

It's not just Holla Forums either. Various /reddit/ boards, autists, and circlejerks are constantly fucking around.

Holla Forums please we have this thread every six hours.

Watch this video series.

Mandatory for all newcomers:
youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

no they don't. Geneticists will be the first to tell you there is no race gene.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

race doesn't exist but neither does society

This is a crap argument against the existence of race as a biological entity. As a parallel, matter itself (usually) does not suddenly change phase from solid to liquid or from liquid to gaseous. That categories are not always discrete doesn't invalidate those categories.

Social constructionism is a spook indeed.

I know about emotivism and I don't think it fits the bill, at least not entirely.

I have thought a lot about the nature of morality and have come to this conclusion. Calling something good is an assignment of worth, the word has a similar meaning to "high in quality". An assignment of worth can only make sense if the object you are addressing has a set definition. For example, a sword is a pointed metal stick for murdering people, the good/bad dimension is established in how good it is at doing it's job.
When you have no definition and therefore no measuring stick, the meaning of good and bad is lost, they become mere statements of opinion, like in emotivism. So while there is no definition, calling something good is equivalent to saying "I like it", but people mistakenly think that there is a measuring stick, meaning that while good should mean "I like it", they believe that they are making an objective judgement.
This leads to a pointless argument where people who don't even agree on the stick they are measuring the good/bad dimension by argue over what is good and bad.

To resolve this, a measuring stick needs to be brought into existence and while and stick would do, it should be one that is internally consistent and satisfies moral intuitions. Nobody would use a measuring stick that puts eating babies in the good direction.
This is why I'm pro constructivism, it takes the subjective category of morality and forces objectivity onto it.

Thanks. As for social democracy, I have not thoroughly examined the alternatives, it just seemed like the best one at first glance, might change my stance later on.

You mean spergholes like /r/The_Donald? I checked that out before, it's basically the Holla Forums embassy on Reddit. As much as I dislike that site for their upvote/karma system, at least they mostly dislike the Trump cult.

Stirner is certainly interesting but consider other philosophers as well. Just because something is a social construct does not mean it's not real, it just means it's existence is of another kind. Friendship is a social construct, but it's a real bond between people, just not a physical object.

I have made a terrible mistake in bringing up that topic, this seems to be the local equivalent of the "are traps gay" question.

can't even greentext properly and he expects me to take his argument seriosuly.
I'll give you something to read too since you are unable to write your own argument.
Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.

Racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of principle, not of science. That said, it is hard to see anything in the new understanding of race that gives ammunition to racists. The reverse is the case. Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the difference between races.

Something tells me you didn't get a STEM degree, much less one in biology. What makes you think humans are still not evolving? Talk to 60% of forensic anthropologist who can tell you when there looking at different races bones.

You're garbage.

Friendship is only real because my ego experiences it.

I don't understand why Holla Forums gets so upset over race and genetics. It's not as if racial differences in intelligence affect our final goal in any way.

How can you claim to have a consistent and justifiable philosophy when you don't believe in science or morals?

exactly, as much as people on here like to jerk off with muh science, you think they would just accept it realize it isn't a big deal and then move on

it's mostly because we're too autistic to let any Holla Forums talking point go unchallenged

It's more about being right. Imagine if you had a huge debate between pro and anti vaccine people instead, it's unrelated to socialism but it's an important issue with a lot of science and opinions behind it. You really wouldn't want to say "it's okay you guys believe vaccines cause autism, that will not impede our goal", same with race.

Also, if you let Holla Forums get away with it, they will use their perceived racial differences as a basis to create a split society with interbreeding outlawed, which would be against our ideals.

It's funny that you use the anti-vaxxer analogy because on this point Holla Forums is the equivalent of the anti-vaxxer denying science.

Because leftpol can't argue against it. It is denying microevolution exists. It is hard to convince people of a class divide caused by something as etherial as "social construct" when facts contrary to it are staring you in the face. The cognitive dissonance is too great to ignore.

It's pretty shitty.
Especially when newfag retards from there claim to be the "true chan culture™"

I think the idea of a genetic basis for intelligence, personality traits, and so on, is more or less correct, though. It dosen't affect socialist thought in any way. Holla Forums apparently jumps from "X group has lower intelligence" to "Welp, guess we need to send them to the ovens".

Class divisions arise from the social relations of production. Race is not class.

I believe in science, and there is some grounds for ethics, but morals are arbitrary.
You actually don't need them to build communism or socialism.

On that. Microevolution is a term invented by retarded creationists but I guess you just mean that humanity, which used to be genetically homogeneous, has changed after being separated for some time. If you believe this, you are absolutely right, there is no reason to deny that there are genetic differences between humans. You can even trace back the genes to their place of origin, since some of them don't show up in certain populations normally.

The issue with the term of race is that it's not the same as saying "different human populations have slightly different genes". Race implies the following:
- humanity has distinct subspecies
- these subspecies have large genetic differences

What we mean when we say "race is a social construct" is that there are no categories like caucsians, blacks and so on. Instead, it's a gradually changing continuum. The farther you go, the blacker people get, little by little. We also mean that there are no large scale genetic differences. Small ones are there, this can not be denied since we have, for example, different facial structure, but they don't affect intelligence or similar things in a significant way.

If you mean that we have genetic variety in humanity when you say "race is real", you are right but using the word race wrong.
By the way, humanity was almost driven to extinction before we managed to leave africa and our genetic diversity never recovered. Our entire species has the diversity of about 10.000 individuals from a normal species. Large scale differences in brain function are impossible with this little difference to work with.

What this boils down to is a nature versus nurture debate, the left say that the american blacks have a shitty culture that could be changed, which would bring them to our level, while the right sees them as subhumans that should go to the ovens. Take your pick.

Obviously you can't back up that position with any quotes from Albert Einstein.

You just define it. But you can't say what is the actual cause of it. You can't say what actually causes differences in people other than "well they are around other people like them". You can't connect any dots.

The primary moral of communism and socialism is equality. Keep tipping your fedora edgelord, but morals are not arbitrary.

Quotes are only ever arguments from authority. Einsteins view on religion was a weird one, he certainly didn't believe in any personal god or supernatural phenomena. Depending on what quotes you mine, you can make him out to be a full fledged atheist or something else but this entire debate is really pointless, since it's basically just fighting over if a smart dead person agreed with you or not.

Religion should stand on it's own legs, either they can justify their claims or they can't. This needs evidence, not the agreement of some physicist.

Hitler confirmed for too left wing for Holla Forums.

...

read

There are certainly no objective morals that are like objective natural laws, if you disagree I can prove this claim.
This leaves the burden of proof on you to decide if morals are arbitrary or not. As you can see in my post, I think they don't need to be. Still, you don't get away with just saying so.

So you think your scientific and philosophical arguments disprove the existence of a god. You are just as bad as a religious person saying they can prove god is real. This is why atheists are shown in such a bad light, get on the agnostic wagon and quit acting like your position is any better than anyone elses.

I disagree prove your claim.

I'm not sure what dots you are trying to get me to connect here. Are you trying to suggest that social classes actually exist because of racial differences and not, you know, selling labor power vs. purchasing it and exploiting it for profit? The upper middle-class white computer programmer and the poor black guy working at a fast-food store are both proletarians. IQ is correlated with wealth, which partially explains the racial makeup of the bourgeoisie, but again, race is not class. The whole idea of class is materialist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Ahh yes. There is no difference between the white programmer and the black burger engineer.

You still believe IQ isn't a inheritable trait, and that high income blacks on average have a lower IQ than low income asians? The science and statistics in this area really are hard fact.

Retard detected

*don't have a lower

They're in the same class, in the Marxist sense. The white programmer is obviously wealthier than the black guy who flips burgers, and is almost surely smarter than him, mostly because he was born with a higher IQ. Both of them trade labor power to someone else in order to earn money to live.

How hard is it to hammer into your head that class, which is defined as relation to the means of production, is not race, which is a biological quality? Just because two people are both proletarians dosen't mean there are no differences between them.

Okay

Let's say there is a god that has created the world and he has also made objective morals. Let's also say he has engraved the objective morals on a huge stone tablet. You read the tablet and ask yourself "why are these the objective morals and not some other rules".
So you ask the god, which is only able to give you 2 answers. I's either

Because I say so
or
Because of reasons XYZ

In the first case, it's a worthless argument from authority that could also be made by a king of a country. There is no need to follow these rules just because a powerful being engraved them on stone tablets.
In the second case, god isn't necessary for the whole thing. The reason why the morals are good can be explained in human terms with reasons and shit.

You might now say that objective morals have some other nature, but even if they are some fundamental part of nature, that's still an argument from authority.

With divinity taken out of the picture, the need to justify the morals arises and justification can only be done by using constructivism and making your own measuring stick to judge morals against, like I describe in

Because you are putting 2 very different people and situations under the same umbrella.

I'm sorry to do this, I know it's an asshole thing to just link a 60 minute lecture but you really should look at this before you continue arguing. The IQ test is pseudoscience and your understanding of intelligence is entirely mistaken. Come back after finishing this. Same goes for anyone talking about intelligence and IQ here.

youtube.com/watch?v=gjR3h0RqVG0

Interesting.
I'll watch it when I have time.
Thanks.

Pick whatever proxy you want. The result is the same.

Just because something is a fallacy that does not make it inherently untrue. So just because something is an argument from authority doesn't make it false. Secondly, you commit a patently false statement that god is only able to give two answers (either/or fallacy). The god could say nothing, or he could say the reasons in terms a person can not understand.

Is it going to be a video about how IQ tests aren't a real measurement of intelligence?

quoting from the comments:

Basically, all the IQ test shows is how good you are at doing the IQ test. It was never designed for the wide spread use it has today. Intelligence is not one quantity, but just the sum of your skills.

Just watch it before making assertions please.

Thank you for giving it a chance.

Flynn effect.

Redditor detected.

Here ya go. I know I'm being and asshole, but I'll do it anyway. That video does nothing to say IQ tests are a pseudoscience, it just does a piss poor job of saying they don't measure real intelligence. It does a damn good job of analyzing intelligence, but yes it is not a test of social intelligence or creativity, that isn't what it is made to do.

Flynn effect works across races, Asian IQ is still higher and rising just as quickly as Black IQ. Try again, cause the Flynn effect is not what you think it is.

What did I say the Flynn effect was?

On that fallacy topic, of course a claim can be true, even if based on a fallacy, but you misunderstand the type of argument I'm making.
Any law set down by a god as objective either has it's terminator there or it doesn't.
A terminator is a stop to the infinite regress, for example the atom is the terminator to being able to cut bacon into ever smaller parts.

A terminator is okay for normal knowledge, it's okay to say, for example with a scientific law, that that is just how the world is. It doesn’t work for morality however, since those are rules on how you ought to behave.
If the objective divine morality is the terminator, you have no reason to follow it and can tell the god to fuck himself. Imagine a king that wrote a random book of rules and started calling them objective, using his power to force people to comply, that is what the god in this scenario is acting like.
If the objective morals aren't the terminator, something else has to be and as I showed before, an assignment of worth can only be made against a definition, which requires constructivism.

If the god doesn't answer, it doesn't solve the problem at all, there are still only these two options, he is just not telling you which it is.
The reason that people can't understand is a retarded argument. If you can't tell me why I should believe you, I have no reason to take it on faith. Appealing to a truth beyond human comprehension is just a tactic to avoid criticism.

Furthermore, has anyone spotted the glaring omission in Holla Forums's claim?

saved.

This has nothing to do with Holla Forums, I get we are supposed to be the antithesis of them I guess. But this doesn't effect our cause at all. It is just denying science and fact.

Wikipedia has already been documented to push bias and can not be used to push any proof when it's "curated" to what the wiki admins want to be known and not a valid source of facts.

The wiki article on ring species is referencing phenotypes such as bloodtype in humans and just further prooves you either have shit reading comprehension, pulling mental gymnastic logical leaps or didn't read it at all and just pulled a wiki link out of your ass to support your argument.

Of course it has a genetic explanation. That has been found and researched and continues being researched. I never even got close to implying it didn't have a genetic explanation. It is all genetic.

you said "alleles… do not suffice to explain the differences between races". you know what an allele is, right?

ok, sure thing.

The Flynn effect is demonstration of the scores reported by these tests are heavily contingent on environmental factors, Holla Forums. Sush now.

The only person with piss poor reading comprehension is you. To remind you what the original argument was:

What is a ring species if not a gradually changing continuum? Oh, I required you to actually think rather than recite what you read in a book? Sorry about that.

Any halfwit knows there is a different scientific definition for intelligence (the one used by the IQ test) and the general publics view of what intelligence means.

My point is that it was developed by Charles Spearman to measure general intelligence, and throughout the years it's had to make concedethat it doesn't.
It's basically just pattern recognition at this point.

Nowhere has that ever been what people mean when they talk about the flynn effect.

"The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day."

"The Flynn effect is the name of the gradual rise in IQ levels since records were started. The average is the same but the raw score is rising approximately 9 points each generation"

It does measure general intelligence quite well, the problem is people confuse what general intelligence is, with what the public thinks of as "intelligence", I encourage you to take a independent research based IQ test and come back and tell me it is just pattern recognition. It is far from just that.

Okay. How do you explain this based on genetics, Holla Forums?

It's universal across races. But the average across races is highly different.

Copied a shit part, cause I'm just shitposting. But what that is saying for those that can't read is that no single allele is responsible for race, rather vast sets of alleles.

No, Holla Forums, I want you to explain to me the genetic basis for human brains performing 9 points better on the test per generation.

This isn't a Holla Forums topic. I make fun of anti-vaxxers cause they deny science and reality. I'll make fun of you for denying science and reality.

Well high IQ individuals are more likely to mate and have successful offspring because IQ is a good indicator of success, and since IQ is hereditary it on average goes up. I have to teach you how evolution and heritable traits work now? The public school system really has failed.

Don't cite shitty resources that fail to back up your argument fam. Your concept belongs in tumblr containment, no where in the article did it say anything about humans being even considered a possible ring species. I'm sure you like to think of yourself as smarter than scientists with your liberal arts but you're still a retard.

Except you and I both know Spearman intended it to measure what the public then thought intelligence was. All mental ability was supposed to be what g represented, but we've learned a lot since then, haven't we?

You are correct, but researchers since then have correct Spearman's mistake and that is no longer the case

Yes, it is. If you really understood the science you'd know why, too.

The entire population of the earth consists of high IQ individuals, Holla Forums? No.

Go back to your books.

If you really understood as much as me you'd know because I'm such a genius. *tips fedora*. I never said it consisted only high IQ individuals. You said you wanted to know the genetic basis I gave it to you and thought you could put two and two together but if I must spell it out. Low IQ individuals are more likely to have successful offspring with low IQ's who after there birth will not be desirable mates, and so there genes wont pass on like those of the high IQ individuals.Any other questions?

You very expressly did say that. Let me remind you:

That doesn't result in massive jump in the intelligence of the general population, unless the "High IQ" group is the majority of the population, Holla Forums.

Stop playing with my fedora, too.

It happens because 50% of the population has a higher IQ than the other 50% and the high IQ% is more likely to have kids, who in turn have their own kids passing down the high IQ traits. You obviously did not get so lucky.

This is demonstratively false.

I'll dumb it down as much as I can, The High IQ group isn't the majority it is half of the whole. That half makes up much more than half of the next generations genes. The next generation in turn has a higher IQ because they are made up of better genes.

There is absolutely no proof of this.

Haha, yep. Ya got me there. There is definitely nothing showing that high IQ individuals are more desirable mates and are more likely to pass down there genes. Except for the common sense that we don't breed retards, and people who are to stupid to get a job tend not to have kids or have kids who then die from being left out in hot cars.

Human society doesn't work like that you coon

How?
If g never was a measurement of all mental ability in the first place, how is it any different now?
What is g even a measurement of at this point?
It's still all in a hypothetical stage of development.
You can find plenty of correlations for g, but as far as anyone articulating what it is, good luck.

Statistics my friend. Go into a STEM field, preferably bio-statistics. Wipe your ass with your sociology degree

Muh Idiocracy is a better argument then basic statistics, biology and bio-statistics classes.

Nice evidence you got there.

by segment, you must mean allele, since genes are inherited individually, not as multi-gene segments.

So what is it? either no single allele is responsible for race, or each individual allele can be assigned to a race.

If the High IQ group are 50% of the population and their breeding activity increases their score results, then we also have the rest of population.

Let's call this other 50% the "Low IQ" group.

If inbreeding causes exaggerated expression of specific traits in the "High IQ" group, we should expect similar results in the "Low IQ" population. Ergo, the thickies get thicker.

Half population with increased IQ + Half population with decreased IQ = ~0.

Try again, Holla Forums.

...

Yes, you are the embodiment of everything that we represent. We welcome you here with open arms.

The definition of g
It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual's performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person's performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks.
Just because something is in development doesn't mean it is useless, it just means it is constantly being refined.

Learn how to analyze data you stupid fuck and get graphs with verifiable data instead of random shit.

You literally can't defend your position. Holla Forums is a parody.

Nice random graphs

prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WAIS-IV_FSIQ_Scores_by_Race_and_Ethnicity.png

Go ahead and independently verify well known data sources and give me an actual response. I'll wait.

my fucking god your retarded. Seriously, learn to understand how graphs even fucking work. Or What IQ is. Then we cant talk without you being unrelentingly retarded

When is the last time you saw a retard have offspring? Well that must get rid of a chunk of the low IQ segment, now lets move up to the might as well be retards. They don't have kids who go on to have kids who go on to have kids, but a small percentage of them probably do, but there is another chunk taken out. How is it so hard for you to realize that people don't mate with poor people as frequently as they mate with wealthy people. And IQ is a great indicator of earnings

Kek.

The best part is that's not even who you've been arguing with

Leftypol everyone. No wonder they got btfo on TRS. I swear this place is just Holla Forums larping as its enemy for keks.

i haven't been arguing with anyone, i just came ot the thread to yell at retarded who don't know how to analyze data.

Nope, but 25% are

You shouldn't be yelling at anyone, until you quit spergin

Afrika nonstop

Well you won't be breeding much, given how retarded you are.

Oh shit! People from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend to have larger families. (for non-trivial reasons)

They have larger families, because the majority of there family is retarded and dies. The fraction of their offspring that lucked out and got good genetics then goes on to have children.

Almost nobody in 1st world countries die before child rearing age.

Sick burn brah, I'll just go cry now

High human development index correlates with lower birthrate.

Solution: Raise everyone's standard of living. Disregard eugenics.

Problem solved.

High poverty creates a bunch of welfare queens whose children rarely ever make anything of themselves. They lack any sort of funds besides state handouts and continue to breed more retards who cant do anything with a decent education even if its forced on them.

The rich class have both the means to and drive to continue to expand their families power through many more children that will follow in their footsteps

The only ones who are not having kids are the middleclass.

You still haven't put down what cognitive ability or number of cognitive abilities it's actually measuring, other than an ability to complete those specific tasks.

Sure, but I also don't see any reason to use IQ as any sort of standard other than bragging rights at this point. You may find some usefulness in Myers Briggs testing too, if that's your standard. Hell, epigenetics may even flip things around if we discover more about how that all fits in. It's interesting but there's way too many blind spots for this to be an exact science yet. It's why when Holla Forums goes "hurrr black are dumb cause IQ", it's hard to take them at all seriously.

Agent Orange.

IQ hasn't nothing to do with wealth and access to resources.
If you came out of a rich vagina you'll stay rich
If you came out of a poor vagina you'll stay poor

Any deviations to this are so usual, they're newsworthy.

...

Pure ideology.

People actually believe Monsanto is not bad?

…

WHAT THE FUCK DO AMERICANS EAT THAT MAKES THEM STUPID???

The ideology is that the reward system in the real world is anything like academia.

You'll work for a man who is ignorant and has a low IQ. But he'll get rich and you won't, because capitalist exploitation.

That is an outlier

This.
Literally 99% of all murricans I've ever seen online would need assisted living here in Yurop because they're that fucking dense.

No, you see, the company that is to be blamed for literal genocide is ACTUALLY ON OUR SIDE!!

Why does earnings capacity decrease in post-Bachelor students?

Getting a PHD is overwhelmingly correlated with high IQ, yet they earn less.

Light skin and straight light hair result from albinism not "evolution" as Nazi "science" would have you believe.

Genetic engineering is not just crossbreeding, it's injecting animal genes into plant cells.

Writing and soap are not found in nature either.

Talk to people who've seen visions and "miracles." Atheism and secular Judaism are a smokescreens to distract you away from the witchcraft that goes on behind doors.

Laissez-faire capitalism is impossible, yet the Left wants us to remain vigilant of it. Moar distractions.

...

Who do PhD holders earn less than?

Nope, I literally can't understand what you're trying to communicate.
That post you linked to was already ambiguous.

If you want to say "IQ is pure ideology", then just fucking type that.

intelligence is a spook. We are all the same intelligence. Just separated by class.

What will libtards believe next?

If Monsanto wasnt bad then there wouldnt be massive fucking bans on it.

My brother shits his pants on the daily. He's 28. Sometimes we just put him outside and don't clean it for awhile. Don't talk to me about intelligence

I have a degree in zoology with a math minor and I've taken three separate statistics classes. I still don't think higher-than-average intelligence actually correlates higher reproductive value in modern civilization. The social safety net of civilization may in fact be selecting for the reproductive success of those with lower-than-average intelligence.

Especially in the absence of free and freely available contraceptives, and the sex education in schools to make it effective.

0.13% by definition actually.

You haven't done much research then. High IQ means money, do you think those with money don't have a higher reproductive value?

The US Census Bureau says its 6.4%

If you are in the bottom 25% of IQ's you might as well be retarded

I've worked in a lab for three years, published in a couple undergraduate research day events, and am applying to graduate programs this fall.

Those with money surely have an easier time reproducing if they choose to, but as we all know capitalism concentrates wealth in a very thin slice of the total population. I was using "reproductive value" in the sense of an individual's contribution to the future growth of a population. It is true that wealth affords a significant fitness edge for future generations of an individual by their ability to not be killed by things, but those in impoverished regions (and thus less educated) may end up overcoming the wealth contribution to reproductive value in the end with higher fecundity.

You haven't observed much reality then.
High socio-economic background means money. Low socio-economic background, even with high IQ means you're fucked.

And those kids in the impoverished region will fail except for the ones who got lucky and received good genes.

Muh victim complex. Those that will do will do, and those that won't won't

What the actual fuck?
Nobody is getting killed. Statically everyone I know, and everyone they know to 6 degrees of separation will die of old age, or cancer. And none of them will die in child birth.

I'm going by definition in which "retard" means an IQ of 70 or lower. By definition, Intelligence Quotient is a normal distribution with every ten points equal to one standard deviation. The probability of something happening below three standard deviations of a normal distribution is approximately 0.13%. If that is the given US Census Bureau statistic then there is either a problem with how IQ is defined, how retardation is defined, or both.

It does not matter if you have good genes or not, if that was the case then most white people would not be poor and getting poorer.

Oh and to top it off, those post-childbearing causes of death, be it cancer or heart disease … Not IQ related.

There is a problem with how you defined retard. I'm glad you said. Also 15 points is equal to one standard deviation, not 10.

Social mobility is a spook

Simply put, no matter how smart you are, if don't have jobs and its normal to accumulate large amounts of debt because our economy is run debt itself(crippling you social mobility even further), you will be poor like most people from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Aha. Well that puts it at approximately 2.3% of the population by definition then.

on*

Psychologists no longer define retardation strictly based on IQ. You can have a 100 IQ and still be deemed mentally retarded.

Well that's definitely a testament to how flawed IQ tests are.

Time to post them dank social mobility memes!?

...

Is that top ben garrison one real?

Since when do people ever post the real Ben Garrison cartoons

"Any time we categorize objects we decide to group things one way as opposed to another. In this sense, all categories are social constructs. If we wanted to, we could get rid of the category “table” and, in its place, invent two new categories: one for all “tables” that are brown and another for all “tables” that are not brown. Of course, it is more useful to have one single category which denotes all tables and so that is what we go with. But the point is that we choose to “go with” one category scheme and not the other. Thus, there is something “social” or “artificial” about all categories.

But this isn’t specific to race. All categories are tools and their validity must be determined by whether or not they are useful. And I have already shown that race is useful.

It is worth noting that most biologists have always known this about race. Some of the first biologists to talk about race, such as the previously referenced Linnaeus and Blumenbach, commented on the fact that racial categories were invented by culture and, to some extent, arbitrary (Stuessy 2009) (Blumenbach 1775). And yet both men knew that human races had real and significant biological differences.

Clearly then, race realists have long known that race is a “social construct” and pointing this out does nothing to refute the race realist position."

We're what, 96% similar to chimps? A change in one base pair can make you blind, deaf, or retarded (in your case, just the latter), 99.9% leaves 3 million base pairs to play around with. Blacks on average have about 100 cubic centimeters less brain volume than Caucasians, IQ is 0.45 correlated with brain volume if you look at a number of MRI studies, due to recent evidence we know Asians left Africa at least 100,000 years ago, the Asiatic Cheetah became a biologically distinct subspecies after 30,000 years outside of Africa, the logical conclusion, given that racial groups differ as much if not more than most subspecies in terms of Fst distances is that human races at least qualify as subspecies; assuming you're going for taxonomic consistency.

GMOs are not biologically harmful, no fucking shit.

How is that an argument. Agent orange was produced by various chemical companies for the government, were they supposed to refuse on moral grounds or what?
Even if Monsanto were entirely responsible, they were still ordered by the rulers. Do you think their CEO went to the president and told him that they made a dangerous chemical that could kill everything and were super willing to mass produce it because they just love murder so much? Do you think that company consists entirely out of cartoon villains?
Also, the Agent Orange argument is applying a weird kind of hereditary guilt to their new products. It's like saying that a blacksmith made a sword once, so you shouldn't buy his shovels.

I won't even bother responding in earnest, all of your arguments are incredibly lazy, not to mention wrong. Are you trolling me?

Race is a meaningless spook. It is only real inasfar as it exists in the minds of racists. It is of no use in any of the sciences (bearing in mind that Black in the American context is an ethnicity, and you do see studies being conducted on American Blacks, but this does not mean that the conductors mean for their predictions, findings etc. to generalize across all dark-skinned people.)

Mentally retarded means you can't function on your own because of mental handicaps

reality is a spoop

I have thought about the question if human desires are finite or not for some time and have come to the conclusion that they are, given certain circumstances.

Human desires are limited by the current standard of living and related to the current state of technology. For example, a human would desire the best television available, but the desire would stop there. No further happiness would be gained by buying a lot of TVs, our hypothetical person might like to put a second one into his bedroom but at some point, more TVs will only be a burden. The desire is satisfied until a better V comes along, which will create new desire in the human.
If technology reaches a maximum or is in some other way stopped, the human desire will die with it. At some point you have all the shiny gadgets you could ever want. Same with many other things, new desire only arises when a superior option presents itself.

People that strive for more money, more property and so on beyond this point are in it for power, not for material desire.

Unwarranted self-importance is typical with fascists. Weak-minded people are attracted to self-aggrandizement, which is why fascism gains power. They are doing what works to grow their ideology.

Don't forget that the actual branches on the evolutionary tree are not obvious from looking at people and our socially constructed racial groups are arbitrary as fuck. A European and a northern African can have more in common than a northern African and a central or southern African do. The Africans are still both niggers though magically. Also Obama is magically a nigger even though he's half white biologically and was raised by his white mother.

GMOs? Yeah the issue here is intellectual property. As long as there's been agriculture, humans have been evolving plants to better suit our needs.

That will actually trigger some niggers on this board as well. We have our share of religious idiots like Reddit Obesity.

Morality is a bourgeois spook. The best we can do is understand two things: what we want and what is true. Knowing what is true will help you find the path to what you want.

Free is a very subjective term, but the market is not inherently bad. Markets + capitalism is disastrous though, in ways that centrally-planned capitalism could only dream of.
We already have a superior system. It's called socialism. You might have heard of it. It's where instead of a minority (capitalists/bourgeoisie) own and control the means of production, the workers do. Moving toward a social democracy is reformism, which is bad because it delays the revolution that gets us to socialism. Sure it might seem nice to have a Swedish SocDem government in the short term but in the long term it makes the wait longer for social evolution by bandaging the stresses on the system that will ultimately cause revolution.
That's communism, which will happen after we've had global socialism for long enough that we've managed to get technology to the point that socially necessary production can be taken for granted.

Nigger, we let nazis and neo-feudalists post here.
Yeah, just avoid the designated shitposting flags.
Please do, and also check out the other leftist boards. If you go to the main page, you can put in "leftism" as a tag to see them.

Atheism and secular Judaism are smokescreens for the witchcraft that goes on behind closed doors.

You have said this before. Is this some kind of copypasta?

Since I'm feeling like taking the bait, here is your refutation.

Any entity or phenomenon that can interact with our reality is necessarily also part of our reality. The point where the change from outside has been made can be studied, the method can be understood and in the end the scientific worldview gets expanded to include whatever place the entity came from. Magic is per definition impossible, anything misunderstood as magic is actually just a natural phenomenon not yet described by science.

Since discovering an entire new field of study would immortalize anyone that managed it, scientists are always looking for stuff like that. Take for example the large hadron collider, it's purpose is to find new physics at super high energies. If magicians could actually produce phenomena outside of our current understanding, the entire field would long be swarming with scientists doing their work and uncovering the underlying mechanisms of the so called magic.
In case you don't know, the james randy foundation offers a prize of a million dollars to anyone that can demonstrate a supernatural phenomenon while observed by scientists, which has not happened once so far.

If we assume that this "magic", which would actually be a form of superscience, were practiced in some higher echelon of society, they would have to maintain an enormous amount of secrecy since even the smallest leak of just one working spell would have the entire scientific world after them. Of course this secrecy hypothesis is immediately disproven by the fact that a random guy on an anonymous imageboard knows about it.

Now we are left with 2 options:

1. Global elites do conduct rituals but they don't actually have any effect. This would imply that some of the smartest people on earth are ensnared by an esoteric religious order which they participate in, even though their rituals don't do jack shit.

2. You are talking out of your ass, either deliberately telling lies or blindly swallowing stuff said by people on the internet without thinking it through.

Keep in mind that the inferences here have been made with pure logic, you could have disproven your own notion just as easily as I just did and the fact that you didn't shows that you are a complete idiot that doesn't even try to find out if his own beliefs are true or not.

Morality is a system for organizing society. What you are proposing is also a system, it's just that your moral values are entirely concentrated on desire and knowledge. You can't throw out morality like that, it appears whenever there is more than one human.

What I am proposing is the creation of rules that can be regarded as akin to absolute morals, which will be used to organize the structure of society through laws. A similar project was the declaration of human rights, for example.

Have you ever heard of game theory? It is a field of science which deals, among other things, with predictions made about the behaviour of societies in terms of game logic. Our current society is designed after the retaliator strategy, in which people are supportive to each other but harshly punish those that are either not supportive or actively leeching off of others. According to my knowledge, the only other stable system is one in which all players are always hostile to each other, which is similar to what you are proposing with your desire society, except that it would destroy all cooperation.

But your proposal can also be interpreted differently. It could mean that people come together and set collective goals that all of them want to meet. Disregarding that this would never work with humans, what they would be doing would be constructivist morality, introducing the good/bad metric, with people working towards the goals as good and against them as bad.

yes, it's all a social construct. But so is your dislike for applying social constructs as universal.

You pretty much ticked all of them.

We will beat that social democracy wussiness out of you, but you're good to go.

Oh no sorry, but ehm. Just try to ignore them? Chan culture is chan culture.

From my experience so far, this is much better than any place infected with Holla Forumstards.

We try

No, that's ethics. Read Stirner.