/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2571725
>>right, your idea of "testicles" is continue to subjugate an entire
>>people and lie to their face about it

I know I said I'd drop this but I had to rebut what this guy said. No, my idea of testicles is balls, testes, you know the glands between your legs that....oh, that's right. I should have been more sensitive. You don't have any!

>>2571695
I'm going to drop this subject but will leave you with this: If you really had any testicles, you'd go on a soapbox and yell this in the middle of Harlem. But that you will not do. And I can take comfort in the fact that if you said this in pretty much any environment other than the internet, you would be readily identified as the asshole that you are.

Dolphins

>>2571666
>>There's a Chinese researcher linked in this thread scroll up.

Not surprisingly so, seeing as the data would ordain him part of the Master Race.

>>2571589
>>It's very clear by your statements and attitudes that you disbelieve it because it conflicts with your morality.

I open to "believe" any data that has been reproduced several times by independent and reliable researchers in a scientific manner. The reality is that only a few white researchers have actually looked into this. (I'll truly trust the results when a black researcher or at least an Indian researcher reproduces the results.) Whether the social stigma is stopping them is irrelevant because there is no reproductions of the data in any case.

You allude to how my morality is somehow clouding my perspective, as though morality were some strange ritual performed by brain-dead mutants. Since when did it become a cardinal sin to have any morality? Even a spiritual side? Must one have be a nihilist to be a scientist? One of the most respected guys in the chemistry department (my field) at my univ is a Baptist, and contrary to what you may have heard, not all religious people are batshit homophobes and freaks. I don't believe in God myself. I was raised secular, but I do have morals about which I choose not to discuss here. If you wish to burn me at the stake for caring about other human beings, then start striking some fucking matches.

>>2571593
>>there are differences between the races; it's obvious

No shit, sherlock. I did not deny that basic biological fact. Don't try to straw man me.

>>2571560
>>and then i became InternetDickFaceMan! secretly spewing
>>racist pseudo-science in my allegedly unbiased pursuit of
>>knowledge.
>>no one must know of my secret identity, otherwise they'd
>>appropriately shun me and kick my ass!
>>so my secret must stay safe with internet anonymity. it's the
>>courageous choice.

Thank you! It really renews my fondness for 4chan-ers to hear someone say something like this.

This /stormfront/ bullshit is getting on my nerves. It's a debasement of science.

Can't we just stick to chemistry, physics, biology, and astronomy here! I wanna answer some h/w questions!

>>2571526
>>His objections to race related research are tantamount to
>>saying that "racial difference existing is wrong thus this
>>difference are not present"

You and your children will form the truly retarded race of men.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'll put it in baby terms for you. I don't know whether the data is accurate or not, but I have responses for both scenarios. If the data is false and there aren't really any differences when controlling for nutrition and income, then (1) well, it's wrong and there's nothing to argue about. If the data is correct, then (2) it rests entirely on the utility of IQ tests to begin with and should not be construed in any way to justify violence or inhumane behavior directed toward blacks. If the data is true, it shouldn't have any influence on how we treat blacks because any modification in our actions would likely be in the direction of contempt, which given their hypothetical constraints would be the last thing they need.

>>2571500
OK, I understand what you're saying, but here are my rebuttals:
1. There are no significant differences in intelligence between races. I don't have time to expound upon this so I will leave it at that.
2. If there are truly significant intellectual differences, it's best to not talk about it (yes, violating the oh-so-precious freedom of speech dogma) so as to avoid the data being used to justify things like slavery and the Holocaust, both of which were justified with scientific racism. I think (or at least hope) we can all agree the Holocaust and slavery were bad things.

>>You realise the fallacy in this, right?
They won't. I'm going to go out on a "limb" and hypothesize that most of the anti-black people here think this way because of some specific incident in their life. When a person has sustained trauma of some kind, it is hard to intellectually dissuade him/her from the results thereof.

BTW Check out the picture of a city in Ethiopia. This isn't Johannesburg or someplace inhabited by whites. The Italians tried to conquer Ethiopia, but Ethiopians drove them out, so this is a good example of raw African ingenuity.

Show us your tits!

Well, what did you expect being the lone female wandering into a den of smelly men discussing science ad nauseum in lieu of fucking girl-fags?

Oh, by the way, this whole race-intelligence/scientific racism thing isn't some sort of new scientific innovation, but you guys are acting like you struck oil. It's been around for hundreds of years. It was often used to justify a little part of American history you may have heard of...slavery!

>>2571333

Well, in your world, my Calculus professor last sem wouldn't have been able to get his mathematics Ph.D. And mind you he got it before affirmative action even existed. He's an old black guy.

If aliens came to this planet tomorrow, they wouldn't pay much attention to the differentiation between the white-colored ape descendants and the brown-colored ape descendants. They would look at us all as vile humans.

Look at the fucking picture you posted. Just in the area spanning that photo, at least a million people could live quite comfortably. Concerns about overpopulation are greatly exaggerated.

>>2571296

Alright buddy, you've been thinking about this race-intelligence thing a little too much. It's getting weird now.

Why does logic work? --> X reason.

Why does X work? --> Y reason; more encompassing than X reason.

Eventually you should just break down and try to develop the TOE (Theory of Everything). Or the GUT (Grand Unified Theory). Go do that. As for myself, I'm going to go off to the corner and masturbate.

>>What makes you an authority on what is justifiable and moral?
One need only be a marginally compassionate human being to realize the horrible pitfalls of taxonomizing people based on the performance of their race.

>>2571205
>>It wasn't like when I first started college, or maybe it was and became much more pronounced.

It's not uncommon for personality or mental disorders to manifest themselves later in life, as in young adulthood with few indications during childhood.

It's nothing to be ashamed of. These sort of things can be treated. Talk to a good psychiatrist and s/he'll know what to do.

>>2570986
>>the problem is, by refusing to recognise differences in races, science creates its own problems
Hold on a second. Let's assume for a moment that there are differences in intelligence between races. What possible problems do you foresee, O wise sage of Athens, by not "recognizing" said intellectual differences in race? I only see -(problems); that is, I only see the absence of problems that would have arose as a result. *cough* fascist eugenics, resurrection of violent racial tensions, and possibly race riots *cough*

>>2571170

I actually lol'd @ this. Thanks..."stumble" upon zero...lol

Maybe we need to do a full proof the way Bertrand Russell proved 1 + 1 = 2.

>>2571113
>>see what I mean... stoners will try to convince you that not only >>is pot not a bad thing but its actually healthy and better for you >>than say alcohol or driving a car or even eating red meat.

Right. Marijuana addicts are in a unique position in that they can be relatively functional with their drug abuse and interpret their semi-functional capacity as evidence that it is not bad for you. Conflicted with questions of guilt, their left brains rationalize their compulsive behavior by going the next step and saying it's healthy for them (and you), which is where the fun stops and the treatment must begin.

If you want to smoke some weed once a month or so, fine. But humans rarely indulge in psychoactive substances with moderation, so avoidance from it is the best option.

These are all topics of addiction medicine and addiction psychology.

>>2571101