/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11138346
It's more like
>it actually equals 2
And the fact that he's correct strengthens his assertion that anons just have some butthurt autistic agenda

Piper Harron's husband, Robert Harron, was a PhD student from 2004-2009, under Andrew Wiles, who was a full professor and chair of the mathematics dept. at Princeton. Manjul Bhargava started as a professor at Princeton at 2004. Her selection as his student is clear nepotism. She now works as a fucking adjunct at U.Hawaii, where her husband is an actual professor.

But just like Piper sees racism and sexism at every turn, so do the autistic brainlets ITT. Obviously it must be that her SJW-tier anti-white-male shitposting and AA is what earned her a PhD and a cushy 300k starting professorship! Clearly they are as deluded as she is.

>>11113863
>>11113837
Yes, that's why they knew they'd find support.

>>11114649
Noblesse oblige.
The evolved intelligentsia have a duty to help the brainlet hordes.

>>11113750
>>11113669
Correct. Thus, if we left society in your hands, it would soon turn into a hellhole, just like theirs.

>>10185411
You seem confused. Selfishness actually encourages the consistent application of a moral code if you believe the purpose of that code is to serve you.

>>9641374
>No one has any advantage above anyone else except for that which they get via their upbringing?
A classic strawman, the favorite tool of eugenicists to avoid having to debate the left honestly.
Obviously, people are different from one another.
The real question is this: how accurately can you predict someone's IQ knowing only their genes and nothing else? Can you predict it accurately enough to justify proactively restricting reproduction, education, and other civil rights?
If the answers are "not remotely accurately" and "no" (and that's what they really are), it is immoral to assume a priori who will achieve and who won't. This leaves you no choice but to grant them equal opportunities until they prove their true personal abilities. Kind of like the legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty", except with regards to achievement and ability.

>>9385848
>implying that I ever implied that you were him
making up shit the other guy didn't say is called "strawmanning", so i'm going to have to ask you to gas yourself.

notice you didn't even address the meat of my argument which was that taking a "part" of something doesn't necessarily imply that something has to be left over.
hence you can take the partial of a 1 variable function, the "part" just happens to be equal to the "whole" in this case.
you obviously couldn't combat this deft and simple defintiion that cuts your legs off, so instead you latched onto the part where I called you a /pol/tard (which, of course, was true anyways)