White people are inherently smarter than blacks?

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

White people are inherently smarter than blacks?

Postby neo-dragon » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:17 pm

Apparently that's what James Watson, world renowned noble prize winner and co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA believes.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/ ... 070583.ece

I mean, wow... To me, as a science teacher and biochemistry major, the names Watson and Crick (the other co-discoverer of the double helix) are right up there with Newton and Einstein, and I had no idea that he held such beliefs. I probably won't mention this little "theory" to my students when I find myself teaching molecular genetics and having to discuss Watson's contributions.

Nonetheless, I think that he still should have been allowed to speak. As is said in the article:
" The correct way to respond is to allow him to be challenged as strongly as possible. A view that is not based on science or is simply wrong will be exposed as such."
Misguided notions only gain power among ignorant people when we try to suppress them rather than letting them be publicly torn to shreds.

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:29 pm

Ugh.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:54 pm

Watson's response

So is this damage control or was he really misquoted? It's hard to say.

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:03 pm

Admittedly, I haven't read the article quite yet, but immediately the obvious protest that comes to my mind is that evaluation of an entire race, especially the inherent traits of that race, based on any genetic evidence from currently living subjects is an inherently flawed evaluation method, especially if this was conducted on any subjects other than those who have been living in isolation from other races and might still be considered direct descendants of whatever evolutionary branch he's using to define whites vs. blacks.

I'll take the time to read the article later, but finding any actual, reputably scientific evidence on this subject, let alone in support of his supposition would be nearly impossible.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:16 pm

One of the things that makes us human is our ability to defy our "biological imperatives." We can think beyond our instincts. And even if this "IQ discrepancy" were real (and I am FAR from convinced), we can act beyond and above that, as well. So it's really quite irrelevant.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:37 pm

Maybe so but our biological imperatives place certain handicaps on us, and I think that they are far from irrelevant. I do believe that our genetics are a significant factor in determining our IQs. Not the only factor, of course, and not even necessarily the largest factor. And let's face it, if my IQ is 30 points lower than yours I will almost certainly have to work considerably harder than you to accomplish the same mental feats. The problem here is that I have never heard or read any actually scientific evidence that supports the idea that ethnicity is connected to intelligence, and the "testing" which this notion is based on almost certainly yields data which results from differences in education rather than DNA.

Violet
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:59 am

Postby Violet » Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:04 am

If I found out that any race had an inherently lower intelligence, especially one as sensitive as the blacks, I would shut the f*** up about it. It's not really worth it.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:24 am

Well you've still got the professional athlete sector cornered so it's not like you actually need your brain to make money or anything.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:10 am

Yeah, if I didn't make it as a teacher my back-up plan was the NBA.

VelvetElvis
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
Title: is real!
First Joined: 0- 9-2004

Postby VelvetElvis » Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:55 am

Why didn't you go NBA in the first place? That's like me dreaming of something outside the kitchen!

I find it distressing to hear something so nazi-ish coming from a brilliant scientist.
Yay, I'm a llama again!

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:43 pm

Incidentally, I had always assumed that James Watson was dead, because even though I knew intellectually that the discovery of the double-helix didn't happen all that long ago, it feels like something that people have known about for ages.

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:01 pm

He conveniently fails to mention those pesky Asian uberbrains that have been gobbling up all the good jobs in the hi-tech industries.

HBC, don't be silly, there's nothing outside the kitchen. It's kitchens all the way down.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
v-girl
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 396
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:35 pm
Title: Dr. Posts-a-Lot
First Joined: 23 Mar 2001

Postby v-girl » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:05 pm

Incidentally, I had always assumed that James Watson was dead, because even though I knew intellectually that the discovery of the double-helix didn't happen all that long ago, it feels like something that people have known about for ages.
Ditto. What, he "discovered" DNA structure in 1953 or something like that? I definitely thought he was dead.

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:15 pm

He conveniently fails to mention those pesky Asian uberbrains that have been gobbling up all the good jobs in the hi-tech industries.

HBC, don't be silly, there's nothing outside the kitchen. It's kitchens all the way down.
Ridiculous.

There's also the delivery room.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

zeroguy
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2741
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
Title: 01111010 01100111
First Joined: 0- 8-2001
Location: Where you least expect me.
Contact:

Postby zeroguy » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:22 pm

What, he "discovered" DNA structure in 1953 or something like that? I definitely thought he was dead.
He was only in his mid-twenties at the time. He's not even 80 now.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.

dgf hhw

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:34 pm

*sighs heavily*

*waits for her profession to start posturing on "The Intelligence Wars" and reviving The Bell Curve debate all over again.*

*sighs some more*

Edited for accidentalal confusion of two annoying books.
Last edited by starlooker on Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:38 pm

Ugh.

I hated THE BELL JAR.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:48 pm

You're in good company.

Although, reading Gottfredson's defense of it is interesting.

I don't know. I haven't read the actual book myself. Yet. Just the polemics that followed. The lessons I learned?

1) Do not under any circumstances ever allow yourself to get sucked into this debate.

2) Always remember that within-group differences are larger and more important than between-group differences, anyways, so what's all the fuss?

3) Be very careful around whom you comment that you do believe in the g-factor (which, yeah, I do. I think the so-called "multiple-intelligence" theory is a bunch of semantic bunk. That is, if you actually believe that it better explains the findings of factor-analyses of test results than g. Do I believe that different people have different areas of giftedness, and some of these can be as important or more important than general factor intelligence? YES. Do I believe that makes these other gifts the same thing as intelligence or a type of intelligence? NO.)

4) Ignore three. Intelligence is a reified construct, anyways. The famous answer to the question, "What is intelligence?" "Intelligence is the thing that intelligence tests measure."

5) About Rule 1: That's wishful thinking is all that is.

Ack. I have to stop opening this thread now. I probably won't.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:23 am

*cough* The Bell Curve *cough*

The Bell Jar is a novel by Sylvia Plath, which is--I'm assuming--what Kelly hates.

As far as The Bell Curve goes, I find it slightly amusing that people get so worked up over it, when in reality most of them haven't read it. Only two chapters deal with the racial intelligence gap, and they explicitly say that they do not attempt to explain the differences as genetic.


Regardless, if they had enough data to back the claim up, I really don't see the problem with their hypothesis. (Begun, the flame war has. I'm sure this is the point many of you stop reading and start arguing.)

Genetic markers exist. There is absolutely no denying that. We see it in skeletal proportions, skin and eye color, body fat disposition, jaw shape, hair texture, etc. Diving deeper, we see differences in responses to stimuli, bloody chemistry, endocrine function, maturity rates, nutritional requirements, and disease patterns. There is a whole host of this kind of evidence to illustrate the point that differences exist among the various races.

And guess what? Evolutionary biology is behind that principle. Africans, Asians, and Europeans all had very different living conditions with very different threats to the species. All three were, clearly, suited best to their environment. Acknowledging these differences, though, probably makes me a racist. And that's fine, if you want to believe that. But denying that those differences exist at the biological level is silly, indeed.

So, what does this mean? It means that certain races--as a whole--are likely better equipped for certain activities than other races--as a whole. There are extremes on both ends, so it's not all-inclusive (hence the "bell curve"), but as a whole, one group very well could be superior to another in a given category. Blacks, for instance, tend to be faster than whites. They're not faster because they are black. They are fast because their genetic makeup (in part) determines their abilities. So, race is more a group of genetic markers than anything else, allowing us to categorize people in order to better understand the whys of the world. "Is it genetic? What genes help determine it? Is it an interaction among different genes? Etc etc etc."

So, their hypothesis isn't "evil," despite the rampant claims otherwise. It just lacks the needed evidence, as the evidence presented isn't enough to make an accurate judgment on their hypothesis.




EDIT:
I just noticed something. All of the whites are screaming bloody murder (well, more accurately, "Nazi!" or "racist!" or whathaveyou. Yet, the only person who actually seems remotely interested in the science of it is Jason, who happens to be black. I'm not sure if I can blame this on oversensitivity and political correctness, or what, but it is interesting to look at, certainly.

Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:59 am

Political correctness is retarded.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4511
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Luet » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:32 am

*sighs heavily*

*waits for her profession to start posturing on "The Intelligence Wars" and reviving The Bell Jar debate all over again.*

*sighs some more*
So, The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath has nothing to do with this discussion, right? Because I'm wicked confused...
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:23 pm

I just noticed something. All of the whites are screaming bloody murder (well, more accurately, "Nazi!" or "racist!" or whathaveyou. Yet, the only person who actually seems remotely interested in the science of it is Jason, who happens to be black. I'm not sure if I can blame this on oversensitivity and political correctness, or what, but it is interesting to look at, certainly.
Well, others have certainly brought up very good points about the science. As for not being offended, that's just the way I am. There are definitely lots of black people out there who get extremely riled up over this sort of thing.

Anyway, it's true that different ethnic groups adapted to thrive in different conditions, but I don't think that the relatively minor differences in environments that early humans lived in come close to comparing to the multitude of common challenges that shaped the brains of the earliest humans which we all descended from. And over the centuries there's been enough interbreeding that I'm not really sure if anyone is a "pure" anything anymore. Most of use probably have ancestors from numerous ethnic groups.

Violet
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:59 am

Postby Violet » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:39 pm

I just noticed something. All of the whites are screaming bloody murder (well, more accurately, "Nazi!" or "racist!" or whathaveyou. Yet, the only person who actually seems remotely interested in the science of it is Jason, who happens to be black. I'm not sure if I can blame this on oversensitivity and political correctness, or what, but it is interesting to look at, certainly.
::snort:: I know it would be funny if that was actually the case, but I believe you're misrepresenting the non-blacks in this thread.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~

User avatar
starlooker
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3823
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
Title: Dr. Mom
First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Location: Home. With cats who have names.

Postby starlooker » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:59 pm

*sighs heavily*

*waits for her profession to start posturing on "The Intelligence Wars" and reviving The Bell Jar debate all over again.*

*sighs some more*
So, The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath has nothing to do with this discussion, right? Because I'm wicked confused...

OOOPS.

I meant The Bell Curve. I was tired.
There's another home somewhere,
There's another glimpse of sky...
There's another way to lean
into the wind, unafraid.
There's another life out there...

~~Mary Chapin Carpenter

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:39 pm

Jason,
You and Kirsten seemed to be the only people talking about the science of it. Everyone else, it seems to me, is whining about the political correctness of the situation.

As far as the black vs white reaction in the thread, I wasn't making any kind of universal claim. I just thought it was mildly interesting to see that the one person who actually has a legitimate right to be outraged isn't. I'm sure there are plenty of people angry over what this guy says. Of course, I'm going to bet a good portion of that is little more than a knee-jerk reaction, but that's beside the point. *shrugs* I just thought it was a bit funny.

As far as your comments of ethnic evolution and early human evolution go, I can't say I disagree. I think you're very right when you say that the branching of ethnic groups had fewer major changes than modern human in its descent from early ancestors.

All I am saying, however, is that differences certainly exist. Now, as you said, there has been so much interbreeding that there is proably no longer a "pure" group of any ethnicity, really. But the genetic markers are still visible. Sometimes it is a mix of markers from a few groups, sometimes its mostly one group, sometimes its such a hodgepodge that we have no clue how to classify the person. What's more, those differences mean different abilities. No matter how much people want to say otherwise, every single person has different abilities than every single other person.

And there's a reason people use the bell curve: there are extremes at both ends, but people tend to cluster at certain abilities. On average, members of Group A are better at Task 1 than members of Group B. That doesn't mean that someone from Group A is automatically better at it than someone from Group B. It just means that, as a whole, we see people from Group A outperforming people of Group B in that very specific activity.

Anyway, the main thing is that the biological principle underlying the guy's statements wasn't evil, wrong, or silly. He just hasn't given us a shred of evidence to support the claims that rest upon those principles. I really am interested to see where he's drawing his conclusion from (the results, samples, and methods, in particular).

User avatar
Yebra
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:48 am
Title: Shadow Zebra

Postby Yebra » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:23 pm

Levitt from Freakonomics had something to say on the evidence in this debate, mainly that there's nowhere near enough evidence to make a strong case either way but that his study suggested results the other way to what Watson thinks.

Personally I find it unlikely if only because there's far more genetic variety in the African gene-set as a whole than the European. Any rule about the smaller pool having characteristics that the larger pool en masse does not would require a fair amount of evidence to convince me and, as far as I can see, that simply doesn't exist.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:39 pm

I think that's exactly what everyone is saying: the evidence isn't there. Or at least, they've haven't presented it with their claims and nothing we've seen is strong enough to conclude that.

To clarify your point on his results: they showed that there was no significant gap at age one. The opposite of what Watson thinks would be that the gap was actually reversed. (Just clarifying for those reading, because I know that I took it to mean that the gap was reversed in his study.)

As far as variation goes, mind tossing us a few sources? I'll admit that I'm not greatly versed in the subject, so I'm always looking for evidence one way or the other.

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:36 pm

I care about the science more than anything. I just haven't paid attention to the thread until now.

The problem that I'm seeing, from a scientific standpoint, is that a lot of black people in the US, at least, are considered black because they're not white. I've known a good number of people who had one black parent and one white parent. They're not any more black than they are white. To prove that there's a different general genetic barrier would mean that one would have to evaluate people based on how black and how white (and how Asian, and how Hispanic...) they were, and see if there was some kind of continuum.

There's also the simple fact that black does not equal African. I've known Haitians who hated it when people called them African American--and for good reason. That people in an entirely different geographic areas would have evolved in the same way and happened to have the same skin color offends my scientific mind.

The other thing that I will say in response to something Ali said way up is this: IQ is not just environmentally based. Barring brain damage, everyone has a certain range in which their IQ is naturally going to fall. For some people the range is greater, for others it's smaller, but it's your environment that is going to determine where your IQ falls in that range.

For example, let's say Susie can have an IQ of between 100 and 130. If she is raised in a place where she has little access to education and intelligent stimulation, she will likely end up closer to 100. If she is raised in a place that stimulates her mentally and has educational resources, she will likely end up closer to 130.

I also don't agree, Kelly, that scientific discoveries should be hushed up. The knowledge is always worth having; it's when you use that knowledge in illogical ways that problems arrise.

I will also point out, Syphon, that the fact that there are biological differences between people does not mean that we can line them up purely based on race. There are some conditions more common in some Europeans than others; different groups of people have evolved in different ways, even if they lived on the same continent. Add to that the mountains of people who come from islands that may share skin tone and very little in the way of evolutionary history, and the fact that in some places race lines are so jumbled because, you know, people have kids together...

You can't do it based on skin color. That just doesn't work. It needs to be based on genetic markers and who comes from what area, and that's not the same thing at all.



User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:47 am

Anon, it never ceases to amaze me that no matter how many discussions we have, you always end up responding to things I've never said.

I never said we could line people up based purely on race. In fact, if you'll read my post, I agreed rather strongly with Jason that there is a significant portion of people in first-world countries which are such a hodgepodge of genetic markers that it makes the classification process that much more daunting.

I said that it was a method of grouping. It's not the only method of grouping. It's not the most valuable method, I'm sure. But it's a method and it's pretty darn valuable. There are medicines specifically targeting certain ethnic groups. Is that a bad thing? No, because their biochemical makeup is different from other ethnic groups. It only makes sense that one group would respond to a certain medicine better than another. So, it may not be the only way of grouping people (and I never argued otherwise), but it certainly is a valuable one.

Another problem is that it isn't just white versus black. You're exactly right that in Europe, the living conditions were so different that the people adapted in very different ways. I never said that we should confine our categories like that. Unfortunately, we don't have the time or tools to look at every single person's genetic makeup. In the future, maybe. But it's not very probable right now. So, we're forced to rely on self-identification. Which may not be as accurate, but people tend to identify with the ethnicity that makes up a majority of their genes. It's not true of every case, but it's better than mere guesswork.

As far as your little comment about skin color goes, I never said that it should be based on skin color. Race and ethnicity are a hell of a lot more than mere skin color. The differences in the biochemical makeup really aren't only skin deep. I fully agree that it should be based on genetic markers and descent patterns.

Though, I would like to note that skin color really is one display of those genetic markers. It's not the only one, and shouldn't be the single one taken into account, but it is a valid display when taken into account a host of the others.
Last edited by Syphon the Sun on Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:25 pm

... but I've barely been around since you joined. Or are you someone else too?

At any rate, I was just making the point, because I didn't feel like you emphasized it enough. That's it, and I'm really not in the mood to bicker and argue about who killed who.



Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2539
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN

Postby Dr. Mobius » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:02 am

It was Colonel Mustard in the study with the candle stick.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Postby Eaquae Legit » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:08 am

My comment wasn't outrage so much as indifference.

I mean, honestly, what would be the point? Our humanity is predicated on acting above our instincts and biological imperatives. Our laws are founded on the principle that all humans are equal. Policies wouldn't change because of it. It's a big, fat "meh" from my point of view.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:32 am

... but I've barely been around since you joined. Or are you someone else too?
bc_hornet ... We've had a good many arguments over the years.

Violet
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:59 am

Postby Violet » Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:30 am

I call shenanigans, you're Satya.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~

anonshadow
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm

Postby anonshadow » Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:11 pm

My comment wasn't outrage so much as indifference.

I mean, honestly, what would be the point? Our humanity is predicated on acting above our instincts and biological imperatives. Our laws are founded on the principle that all humans are equal. Policies wouldn't change because of it. It's a big, fat "meh" from my point of view.
But discovering a lot of things won't directly influence policy. Discovering how quickly the universe is expanding won't change policies regarding everyday life. Neither will discovering many things about genetics. 5-HTT won't change policy. It's still good to know. I don't think that whether something will change policy should control whether we research it.




Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot] and 51 guests