/lit/ - Literature

>>4534849
Yup, care to prove otherwise?

If not you are more than welcome to fuck off back to plebbit

The less cancer the better for the whole site! :)

>>4322350
Since when has the hereditarian position been discredited or based on pseudoscience in the first place?

>>4193555
>pseudoscience
Where did it claim to be science? It's pointing out the historical realities of these things rather than simplified myths of how universally terrible these things were.
>>4193571
>No it hasn't, fuck yourself.
Yes it has, dumbass. Try reading some slave narratives for starters.

>>3460886

a cavalcade of quibbling over definitions and assertions that because one thing contributes to development, it follows that all others are ruled out, precious little involving any quantitative analysis.


http://inductivist.blogspot.ca/20107/iq-ses-and-incarceration.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scien/article/pii/S0191886911000912

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-gma/racial-differences-intelligen/race-differences-in-intelligenceow-i-changed-my-mind

http://www.news-medical.net/news/25/04/26/9530.aspx

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jes-watson-tells-inconvenient-trut296.php

http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staffesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf

>>3415447
Oh look, someone who hasn't read a single paper on the subjects of race or intelligence. THESE arguments sure haven't been refuted a million times before.

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanenetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Faacy
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainseam_Science_on_Intelligence

>>3345662
You're saying this like this is the only tactic /pol/ has. At the beginning of the thread I tried to provoke actual debate. But, I reiterate
>/pol/ has had debates with other boards in the past and they usually end in the receiving board tossing out moralistic fallacies and insults due to the absence of rational arguments.

>>3345345
>>3345357
And here you see how most arguments end before they can begin. Saging posts with fallacies and insults. How can the third party viewer be convinced if the second party isn't even willing to engage in argument? That is why you get bombed with pictures and statistics so often.

The other problem is that most people have no a priori knowledge about the typical /pol/ subjects, and argue against presented evidence without any knowledge or evidence of their own. So people often end up using the very evidence used against them to argue, moving the goalposts until they get strung up in fallacies and a lack of evidence to back up the claims they make. This can easily go beyond subjects. Like someone said earlier: "/pol/ is right about niggers, but that doesn't make them right about Jews". So then you concede an argument only to start another one, which almost always goes in exactly the same way.

>>3315492
>the last human evolution was lactose tolerance, approx 14 thousand years ago
Oh please, don't start this. Punctuated equilibrium theory is a farce and unsupported by the most basic empiricism.

>>3315495
>Positive policies have multiple precedents in human history.
It's honestly getting old mentioning differences in intelligence on unaware boards over and over again. Ashkenazi Jews are the easiest group to examine.