IQ matters

Hypoxia inspired me to create a question.

If genes aren't inherited. Then how come a white couple can't make a black baby?

They possibly could because they cannot possibly know their entire heritage. They might be carrying genes that are so recessive that it would take a pairing of two with this same hidden DNA/RNA to produce a child of color. It's pretty much the same question of how brunettes can pair up and produce the occasional ginger. Thus Spake Gregor Mendel.
 
So, government shouldn't legislate that murder is wrong/against the law?

I haven't quite reached a conclusion, but I've gotten this far: If defending yourself against an unjust aggressor results in death, it is not murder. So, I am making a distinction between killing and murder.

Do you agree with this distinction?
 
What's between you and God is wholly spiritual, eternal.

What's between you and government is wholly political, worldly.

That's the separation between God and state, your reference to Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.

Jefferson's "separation" referred to the political entities of "church and state", both of which still vie for individual dominance on the world scale. In Jefferson's younger days, the "church", whichever denomination, was as politically powerful as any colony's government, and in many instances, more so.

Jefferson's "separation", then, had nothing to do with God per se, but everything to do with denouncing"church and state" dominance over YOUR natural, God-endowed, inalienable individual right to freely manage your own relationship with God without any outside political interference at all.

Jesus was preaching the imminent end of the world. To him any worldly possessions were meaningless and he was exhorting the Jews to repent, reform and get ready to meet their maker. Despite his messaging, he was not a best of times kind of guy but a preacher of the worst of times.
 
The single greatest factor in an individuals IQ is genetically inherited. The debate on that issue is over and the science is in. To date there are dozens of sites in the human genome that researchers have associated with intelligence and they suspect that there are hundreds if not thousands left to discover.

One of the key pieces of research that put the final nail in the "it's the environment" believers coffin were the studies of identical twins separated at birth. Different environments, different experiences, same IQ.
 
That is only true in a discussion that is not emotion driven.
I learned this morning that easily provable logic fallacies do not matter when it comes to desired social outcomes.
 
I haven't quite reached a conclusion, but I've gotten this far: If defending yourself against an unjust aggressor results in death, it is not murder. So, I am making a distinction between killing and murder.

Do you agree with this distinction?

Simply, of course.

BUT, killing = killing, and introducing "murder" is simply a means to not justify the killing itself, so they still remain, naturally, two different things (A≠B).

Also: do you still maintain the state shouldn't also legislate the same distinction as you do?
 
That is only true in a discussion that is not emotion driven.
I learned this morning that easily provable logic fallacies do not matter when it comes to desired social outcomes.

You just now finding that out?

"Feelings, oh oh Feelings"

Welcome to the new age counter-science revolution fueled by the neo-Marxists.
'
 
Not really just now. But every once in a while you encounter such a shining example of stupidity and logical fail that it leaves you breathless. Do you really think that you can make that assumption based upon statistics that you just manipulated with extreme prejudice?
 
Not really just now. But every once in a while you encounter such a shining example of stupidity and logical fail that it leaves you breathless. Do you really think that you can make that assumption based upon statistics that you just manipulated with extreme prejudice?

Would you like some salve for your extreme butthurt?
 
Also: do you still maintain the state shouldn't also legislate the same distinction as you do?

No. Lines have to be drawn, with justified intent.

Simply, of course.

BUT, killing = killing, and introducing "murder" is simply a means to not justify the killing itself, so they still remain, naturally, two different things (A≠B).


Do you think legal abortion in the case of self defense is justified? I'm leaning to "yes, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere."

And remember, slippery slope is considered a logical fallacy.
 
Intelligence is neither biological nor inheritable. If it were, dummies would have been weeded from the genepool long ago and we'd all be fucking geniuses now, building interstellar colonies instead of lame excuses for intolerance.

IQ is not a single measure of anything. I vaguely recall the batteries of enlistment tests I took long ago, and the results. Army scores were in various areas for specific capabilities which were then factored together for a G.I. (general Intelligence) score, equivalent to IQ. Folks with high G.I. and verbal scores but low mechanical and visualization scores probably wouldn't do well as grease monkeys or gun bunnies.

Are specific capabilities inheritable? Did the Bach and Shankar families produce generations of musicians because of genes, or lifelong practice? Ask that of any trade.

Ridiculous. Do you even biology?

Every time there's a discussion on IQ the stupid comes out and it's always the stupid that don't believe IQ is a thing.

Ever heard of the concept of animal husbandry? Breeding hunting dogs? Breeding horses? Why is it that behavioral traits can be inherited from animals parents but not human parents? That's absolutely the stupidest take on genetically heritable traits I've ever heard.

Also dumb:Just because you can separate various components of intelligence out and measure them certainly does not make the concept of measuring intelligence invalid. It merely shows that it is very much quantifiable.

Also: that is not how evolution works.
 
Too bad your theory here fails when it comes to hair, looks, tits, legs and ass that most certainly keep dummies in the breeding pool.
If intelligence (whatever that means) is inheritable, why have humans not evolved into a race of super-geniuses? Does intelligence not benefit survival and reproduction? What is the evolutionary niche for low intelligence?
 
I was trying to keep it clean.

Just replace self-defense with "rape and pregnancy that endangers mothers life".

"self-defense"? Geezus.

4 questions for you:

1. When is a new human life created?

2. What % of abortions are because of rape?

3. What % of abortions are performed to less endanger the mother's life?

4. What % of abortions are performed for any reason other than those two?
 
I lost faith in IQ tests after I scored genius in the Mensa version. They mean fuck all in real life. Fuck all.

However, I'm still smart enough not to bother reading this thread. Lots of people trying to sound smart whilst calling each other dumb.
 
Ridiculous. Do you even biology?

Every time there's a discussion on IQ the stupid comes out and it's always the stupid that don't believe IQ is a thing.

Ever heard of the concept of animal husbandry? Breeding hunting dogs? Breeding horses? Why is it that behavioral traits can be inherited from animals parents but not human parents? That's absolutely the stupidest take on genetically heritable traits I've ever heard.

Also dumb:Just because you can separate various components of intelligence out and measure them certainly does not make the concept of measuring intelligence invalid. It merely shows that it is very much quantifiable.

Also: that is not how evolution works.

https://www.taleas.com/images/memes/claims-high-iq-thinks-it-validates-all-his-opinions.png


btw... that's CLAIMS.


Same goes for ish coach and aj.. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Since the subject has been brought up, the correlation of IQ to success in life is .7+ (70+%). And that begs the question, "What is success?" Fame? Fortune? What?

There are millions of high IQ people out there that are successful in their chosen field that don't have a gazillion dollars or are a household name. But they are successful none the less. Perhaps they've chosen to apply themselves in a different direction, a direction that would never yield fame or fortune, yet they are successful by their own measure. Most successful small businessmen have average to slightly above average IQ's, and they too are successful in their own right.

Having a high IQ does not guarantee that the individual is going to apply themselves or that they are immune to the 'shit happens' blows that life delivers. Really smart people get fucked over by life too.

But it still remains the most consistent indicator of an individuals success.
 
Back
Top