6 ms·

What do you mean? I've always found it telling that only one side of the argument wants to research it.

• wayn3 10y ago
  one side of the argument. scientists do not generally take sides in a battle to denounce "races" through flawed metrics. unless its politically motivated. "oh look we figured out that the black people have lower iqs. not saying this means anything. obviously. just saying. claiming the scientific method here. sorry about the results but they are what they are." repulsive
  • ebfe 10y ago
    My point is that you don't see the opposite- there aren't researchers purporting to have shown that the means are the same, flawed research or otherwise. They don't want to study it, even though doing so could prove their position. Imagine if there was an easy way to check whether or not God existed, but Christians virulently fought against anyone who tried to do so. Wouldn't this be a pretty good indicator that they were wrong?
    • wayn3 10y ago
      I know what your point is. I'm not arguing your point. I'm calling it morally bankrupt. Any person who is at all familiar with the history of the United States of America and has a iota of class stays away from publicizing data that concerns itself with judging whether "those black folks" may or may not actually be "inferior". Even if your research proved that they are NOT - you'd still have had to question it first to even perform the study. Personally, I don't believe that there should be limits to what science can and can not investigate. But the individuals who actually perform those studies are no less repugnant deplorables who feel like arming white supremacists with "evidence" is a justified means to gaining scientific recognition. What does the world gain from knowing this? "Black people are genetically predisposed to being incapable of being smart". Great service to the human race and modern society. Make 500 million people feel bad about themselves in the name of progress. seriously, dude. And btw, its still just one paper. This is not much in the name of scientific discourse. Maybe "the other side" isn't "researched" because without scientific discourse, you don't actually have much of a result. Without a control study that replicates these results, you don't really have results. You could have engineered them. So long as nobody else is asshole enough to verify those results for you, you effectively don't have any. Over here in germany, its illegal to research whether the concentration camps actually killed 7 million people. By a back of the envelope calculation, this seems unlikely to me. Its just A LOT. But seriously, lets say some historian assembles all the records and finds its "only 700k"? What kind of person would even want that kind of result on their hands? "Hey look, nazi germany wasn't that bad. It killed only 700k jews. Wasn't even a million". And yes, I've just compared your stupidity to that stupidity. Because its exactly the same thing. If you want to hate people, do it fucking openly. Put your name to it. Don't hide behind the scientific method. You're just an asshole and we can line up a million mathematicians who would happily poke holes in your numbers all day long if you actually released the real numbers instead of just your carefully selected graphs that "render obvious the mental retardation of the wrong skin color folks".
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]