The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
lol, so amazing libs cannot comprehend the minority low iq
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 14th, 2012 1:56 AM Author: Harsh big theatre hairy legs reality. its like they just see objective data and reject it because it does not fit their ideaology. LOL, this actually explains libtards well. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459266) |
 |
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:42 AM Author: Adventurous Bat Shit Crazy Hell Yes, it is troubling, but reality rejection is far worse on the right. Many conservatives reject ENTIRE BRANCHES OF MODERN SCIENCE because the discoveries conflict with their religious views. That's far more disturbing than when liberals ignore a study or two about race and intelligence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459601) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:43 AM Author: Underhanded Offensive Range Azn rank the cities of the pacnw and the cities of cali as well (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459603) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:45 AM Author: Adventurous Bat Shit Crazy Hell San Francisco
Seattle
Portland
San Diego
Los Angeles
Eugene
Sacramento
Oakland
Spokane
Fresno |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:48 AM Author: Cyan bipolar cuck LOL, curious how these cities are ranked in order of GAY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459622) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:49 AM Author: Underhanded Offensive Range Azn my city came in 4th, i can live with that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459626) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:04 AM Author: Irradiated deranged international law enforcement agency why is sf so high (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459679) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:08 AM Author: Underhanded Offensive Range Azn i believe evan39 is homosexual (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459689) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:44 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate yes, because social conservatives really elected their candidate for the general elections this year. you seem dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459607) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:44 AM Author: Cyan bipolar cuck lol, homosexuality is unnatural and should be banned, faggot, get over it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459608) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:48 AM Author: Adventurous Bat Shit Crazy Hell :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459621) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:45 AM Author: heady mediation TITCR. No idea how anyone intelligent can identify as a Republican given how anti-science and progress they are anymore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459613) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:48 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Prescott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lucas,_Jr.
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Sargent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Barro
etc. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:52 AM Author: Cyan bipolar cuck (bill o'reilly) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459645) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:54 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate (keith olbermann) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459651) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:02 AM Author: Jade kink-friendly ticket booth those guys generally aren't social conservatives, though. dudes like mankiw don't even take positions on abortion, for instance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459673) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:05 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate social conservatives are a minority subset of the republican party, as romney's nomination indicates. sorry that you're trying to fight a straw man though, little breh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459680) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:07 AM Author: Jade kink-friendly ticket booth i'm interested in seeing sane/pragmatic policies implemented. what's up with the huge wave of anti-abortion/sonogram/time limit legislation going through GOP-controlled state legislatures? that seems insane - if anything, we should ENCOURAGE poors to get abortions, no?
romney says he both opposes almost all legal abortion AND wants a constitutional amendment outlawing queer marriage - why? |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:09 AM Author: Underhanded Offensive Range Azn he was still trying to get the nomination when he said all that, wait a month or two. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459691) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:10 AM Author: Jade kink-friendly ticket booth i'd prefer to be able to take a presidential candidate at his word. obama failed that test badly - now you're saying romney is no different? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459693) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:14 AM Author: Underhanded Offensive Range Azn i've never voted and i'm not about to start but romney will say what you want to hear eventually, at some time or another. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459704) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:21 AM Author: heady mediation Wa-a-a-ait... you said social conservatives are a small part of the Republican party. If so, why does one have to pretend to be a nutcase to get your party's nom? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459729) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:33 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate Link to Romney rejecting evolution? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459752) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:34 AM Author: heady mediation When did I say he rejected evolution? Answer the question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459756) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:36 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate What makes him a social conservative? Is it just abortion? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459762) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:38 AM Author: Jade kink-friendly ticket booth he also supports the failed "war on drugs"
|
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:40 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/does-romney-support-the-drug-war.html (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459778) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:10 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate "romney says he both opposes almost all legal abortion AND wants a constitutional amendment outlawing queer marriage - why?"
for the same reason obama promised to close guantanamo and said he was against gay marriage. it's called campaigning |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:19 AM Author: heady mediation Romney claims to be pro-life/anti-abortion. That's social conservative. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459726) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:31 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate 1) It's called campaigning.
2) "anti-science" refers to social conservatives who reject evolution. Being "pro-life/anti-abortion" is not anti-science. Stop trying to fight a straw man.
3) Romney is a fiscal conservative. He had a socially moderate position in Massachusetts. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:36 AM Author: heady mediation You said social conservatives are only a small part of the Republican party. If they are, why do candidates have to pretend to be religious nutcases to get the nod?
(BTW being pro-life is basically anti-science because only religious whackos think clumps of cells deserve legal rights). |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:39 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate Being anti-abortion makes you a religious nutcase? Defining life at conception makes you anti-science?
When does a fetus stop being a clump of cells to you? |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:40 AM Author: heady mediation Viability.
Now answer the original question I posed and stop trying to squirm out of it, snake. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:41 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate So your entire world view revolves around normative arguments, correct? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459786) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:42 AM Author: heady mediation You said social conservatives are only a small part of the Republican party. If they are, why do candidates have to pretend to be religious nutcases to get the nod? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459788) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:44 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate What specifically did Romney do to "pretend to be a religious nutcase"? Why are you dodging the question? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459791) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:46 AM Author: heady mediation Wanting to make abortion illegal in almost all circumstances is a fringe position. Most Americans are pro-choice. Why do candidates have to adopt fringe socially conservative opinions to be nominated if social conservatives are a small minority of the party? ANSWER THE QUESTION RAPETILE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459796) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:50 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate In 2011, ABC News reported that Romney supports the pro-life plank of the GOP platform, which means he would support establishing legal personhood for all unborn children in all 50 states.[223] He has not, however, stated his position on "personhood legislation", which would declare legal personhood to begin at fertilization and would ban some forms of contraception, such as the birth-control pill.[224] Romney declined to sign a pro-life pledge for 2012 presidential candidates sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony List by which signers pledge to push legislation to end all taxpayer funding of abortion and to sign a law to "protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion." The pledge also commits signers to nominate judges and appoint executive branch officials who are pro-life. Romney's spokeswoman said the pledge could have "unforeseen consequences" and that Romney could not "in good conscience sign it."[225]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:52 AM Author: heady mediation Why do candidates have to adopt fringe socially conservative opinions to get the Republican nom? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459809) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:53 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate Why are you using straw man arguments? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459814) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:54 AM Author: heady mediation You said that social conservatives are a small part of the party. Why do nominees have to adopt socially conservative views to win then? Why can't you just answer? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459819) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:55 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate What specifically did Romney do to "pretend to be a religious nutcase"? Why are you dodging the question? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459821) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:57 AM Author: heady mediation Ignore religion.
Why does Romney (or any candidate) have to present a socially conservative platform to win the nom if social conservatives are a small minority of the party? Answer please. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:58 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate So you're moving the goal posts, now? Just lolol @ you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459829) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:00 AM Author: heady mediation Why won't you just answer me?
Your original post said that social conservatives are a small minority of the Republican party. If so, why do nominees need socially conservative platforms to be nominated? |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:02 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate Social conservatives are a minority part of the Republican party, relative to fiscal conservatives. Republicans chose the fiscal conservative (Romney) over the social conservative (Santorum). What don't you understand?
Also, explain your inclination to use straw man arguments. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:05 AM Author: heady mediation Romney (and all of the nominees) is a social conservative also, he's just not as socially conservative as Santorum. If social conservatives are a small minority, why can't ANY non-social conservative nom have any success? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459844) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:09 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate What's with you and straw mans? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459854) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:10 AM Author: heady mediation Stop overusing your Philosophy 101 vocabulary terms. Point out the straw men. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459857) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:14 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate Republicans care more about fiscal issues than social issues. Correct or not? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459863) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:16 AM Author: heady mediation Can you just answer the question? You're not vying for the Republican nomination. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459868) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:17 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate Oh, you mean answer the question to the straw man you set up? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459871) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:19 AM Author: heady mediation Are you denying that Romney is socially conservative? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459876) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:20 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate Romney is a social moderate. Just LOL @ you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459878) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:20 AM Author: heady mediation No he isn't. Most Americans are pro-choice. Thus he's to the right of the median. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459881) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:21 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate "No he isn't. Most Americans are pro-choice. Thus he's to the right of the median."
You lose. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:23 AM Author: heady mediation I said most Americans are pro-choice, not that they think abortion is ok morally.
You are either a retard or you're just as slimy as all the other reptiles. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:24 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
You lose. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:29 AM Author: heady mediation LOL nice job finding one time 3 years ago that pro-life slightly edged out pro-choice.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/05/23/more-americans-identify-prochoice-prolife
It's 2012, moron. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:30 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate "After a high point in 2009 where more people identified as pro-life, the public opinion on abortion rights has switched back, with more people once more identifying as pro-choice. But, as it has been in the past, the divide is still very close to even."
SELF-PWN
You lose. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:31 AM Author: heady mediation Did you read what you pasted? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459905) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:33 AM Author: blue trailer park doctorate You said: "Most Americans are pro-choice. Thus he's to the right of the median."
From your link: "Americans are closely divided between those calling themselves "pro-choice" and those who are "pro-life," now 49% and 45%, respectively, in Gallup's 2011 update on U.S. abortion attitudes. This is similar to a year ago, when 45% were "pro-choice" and 47% "pro-life." However, it is the first time since 2008 that the "pro-choice" position has had the numerical advantage on this Gallup trend."
Thus, the numbers fluctuate toward an even split. You can't definitively state that more Americans will be pro-choice at the end of this year, much less "most". You seem like a retard. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:48 AM Author: heady mediation Right, most Americans are pro-choice. TY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459925) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:07 AM Author: vivacious trump supporter lol libtard IRATE every time conservative "scientists" point out that global warming is completely made up (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459688) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:12 AM Author: clear athletic conference except smart conservatives laugh at dumb reptiles who reject stuff like evolution. but smart libs STILL can't admit that blacks are dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459700) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:16 AM Author: Jade kink-friendly ticket booth didn't the national review - a "conservative" publication - just fire one of its writers for merely hinting in that direction? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459715) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:58 AM Author: clear athletic conference no. that idiot was unhinged, saying that black politicans should be scrutinized for honesty more than whites and shit. das racist.
it's not racist to admit that -- ON THE LAW OF AVERAGES -- blacks are dumber than whites. there's been hundreds of academic papers saying as much, and none the other way. just get over it. whites have a higher IQ curve than blacks. nbd. let's just admit it. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:22 AM Author: heady mediation Why are you MAD that most people aren't racists like you?
LOL @ reptiles comparing evolution to blacks being dumber genetically. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:56 AM Author: clear athletic conference why? both are true, BREH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459825) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:59 AM Author: heady mediation Evolution is obviously true and anyone who doesn't believe it is a moron.
Blacks are dumber genetically is not obviously true. No one on xoxo understands anything about genetics or evolution, you are just parroting things you've heard from other people who do. There are many people much smarter and better educated on the topic than you who don't agree with you. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:01 AM Author: clear athletic conference even blacks who grow up in high income households score significantly lower on iq tests than whites, breh. the most likely explanation is that blacks GENETICALLY have a lower iq curve than whites (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459838) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:06 AM Author: heady mediation Even if this were the "most likely explanation" that's nowhere close to placing your theory on par with evolution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459845) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:06 AM Author: clear athletic conference it still makes for a good analogy. u wont find any libs who will admit that it is likely that blacks on average dumber than whites genetically. u will hardly find any cons who will admit as much. but it is the most likely explanation for the data. HMM (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459846) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:09 AM Author: heady mediation Dood you really don't know enough about genetics to make these claims. You aren't called on it here because no one knows anything about science, but you look really silly making these proclamations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459853) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:14 AM Author: clear athletic conference uh i know that studies on the heritability of IQ have produced results from a low of 50% to a high of over 90%. i know that avg black IQs have remained stable at like 20 points below whites despite blacks having made substantial inroads over the last 50+ yrs. you really don't need to be a scientist to use common sense and draw a likely conclusion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459865) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:18 AM Author: heady mediation No, you don't need to be informed to draw a conclusion. It just so happens that your conclusion is SPS. Don't worry, though, you're on xoxo, home of poli sci major racists with low self-esteem, so you're in the perfect place to claim that white/Asian IQ dominance is "obviously" genetic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459874) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:22 AM Author: clear athletic conference as opposed to the world, who find nothing wrong with blacks jumping higher than whites as genetic BUT O NONONONO brains differing cant possibly be genetic!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459886) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:24 AM Author: heady mediation It is good for your sake that you majored in a liberal art and went to law school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459891) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:44 AM Author: clear athletic conference The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (1976) examined the IQ test scores of 122 adopted children and 143 nonadopted children reared by advantaged white families.[122]
Black-Black 95 Black-White 110 White-White 118
|
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:44 AM Author: heady mediation No one argues that minorities have lower IQs, they argue that the difference isn't genetic. You seem stupid. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459605) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:47 AM Author: lascivious dun boltzmann There really are libs who argue that minority IQs aren't lower and are only lowered by racism, that minorities don't commit more crimes and are only targeted more heavily by police, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459618) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:12 AM Author: clear athletic conference uh.... "no one" = vast majority of libs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459702) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 4:25 AM Author: heady mediation Wow lots of retards up at this hour. Libs don't deny that blacks on average score lower on IQ tests.
They argue that: a)the IQ tests used are culturally biased, b)racism affects how well blacks do, c)education, upbringing and culture affect how blacks do (or some combination). They just reject the idea that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:00 AM Author: clear athletic conference so libs reject the most simple explanation for blacks scoring lower on IQ tests --- SIGNIFICANTLY lower -- and come up with all this shit that couldn't possibly make up the difference. why again? o ya, it fits their political worldview, which couldn't possibly handle teh truth of black dumbness (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459835) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:07 AM Author: heady mediation Why do reptiles reject any idea that isn't the "simplest?" Life isn't a Glenn Beck play. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459848) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:19 AM Author: clear athletic conference occam's razor, breh. what's more absurd, btw, me rejecting outliers or you rejecting the most likely explanation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459875) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:20 AM Author: heady mediation The point is that it's not the most likely explanation.
LOL @ you citing Occam's Razor as though it's a scientific principle.
Stick to lawyering. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:23 AM Author: clear athletic conference what's the most likely explanation for such a gap, even in high income blacks, pray tell? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459890) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:25 AM Author: heady mediation I don't know. There are a number of possible explanations. It's probably a combination of factors. Unlike most people on this board, I don't comment on things I'm unsure of. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459896) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:28 AM Author: clear athletic conference uhuh. just lol. so deluded that you can't admit to yourself the most likely explanation. i'm sure that blacks are just confused on IQ tests because of cultural biases (NOPE, been thoroughly tested and despite numerous attempts to make tests more black friendly, blacks are still scoring just as poorly), or perhaps it is socioeconomic (NOPE, even high income blacks on average score lower on IQ testing than whites). anything else? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459898) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:30 AM Author: heady mediation lolol omg hahaha ololol libtard nigs lolol omg so stupid (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459903) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:32 AM Author: clear athletic conference let's not get hysterical here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459907) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:25 AM Author: clear athletic conference btw occam's razor is a scientific principle, you fucking retard. there are many empirical studies suggesting it is statistically sound. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459894) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:32 AM Author: heady mediation LOL just LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459909) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:04 AM Author: clear athletic conference and, btw, tons of libs will deny that blacks score lower on iq tests. just make this assertion to a mob of libs and see what happens to you, i dare you. lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459842) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:07 AM Author: wonderful house If you admit blacks score lower then you may have to come up with a reason why. It's safer to just deny they score lower. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459849) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:11 AM Author: heady mediation Or maybe just maybe outside of xoxo not everyone KNOWS the average IQ of every race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459859) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:08 AM Author: heady mediation XOXO aspie is shocked that most people aren't well-versed in IQ statistics; WHY? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459850) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:20 AM Author: clear athletic conference not shocked at all. just responding to this dood who claims that everyone accepts blacks score lower than whites (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459877) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:22 AM Author: heady mediation It's not that they don't "accept" it, they just don't know about the data. If they were presented with the data they wouldn't claim it was wrong.
OTOH, libs who are knowledgeable about the black-white IQ gap DO reject the racist explanation for WHY blacks score lower. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:31 AM Author: clear athletic conference why do you think they don't know the data? probably for the same reason christian fundies dont know the data on evolution. active ignorance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459904) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:32 AM Author: heady mediation Christian fundies draw their own warped conclusions based on the data.
What blacks score on IQ tests isn't a "conclusion" it's just straight data. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:33 AM Author: clear athletic conference breh if you even tried to PRESENT the data to libs you would be accused of racism (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459910) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:49 AM Author: heady mediation TBF racists are usually the ones who are interested in this. What good could knowing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites do, even if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459927) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:52 AM Author: clear athletic conference i could care less tbh, but have become interested solely because it's such a taboo subject. it bothers me that people can't talk about it. i think transparency is always the best policy. i don't think that is damning that blacks are less intelligent than whites ON AVERAGE. there are still many blacks who are more intelligence than whites. there just happens to be more whites intelligent than blacks. get over it. by the way, i don't think intelligence is the be all of everything. plenty of intelligent losers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459930) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 5:59 AM Author: heady mediation OK but there's a reason why only racists are obsessed with racial IQ differences. Why do you think xoxo are so concerned with discussing this? "Normal" people don't really care whether X group is more intelligent on average, because as you said, it says nothing about individuals. So if someone is especially interested in discussing racial IQ differences, chances are they're a racist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459933) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:10 AM Author: clear athletic conference true, though i think you may be underestimating the # of people who are interested because it is taboo. intelligent people like to go to where people say is off limits.
there's also another group of people who are really interested in public policy and just want to know everything about race relations to better assess policy prescriptions.
at any rate, i hope you at least agree that labeling people racist -- with its vast implications -- is really counterproductive if you believe in the free exchange of ideas at all.
|
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:37 AM Author: citrine anal stage hissy fit Problems with race realism or whatever is that like the poster above you said, knowing blacks have a lower IQ doesn't allow you to do anything with regards to individual blacks and almost nothing with policy. It is simply not useful info. That is part of the reason why the Derb article got so much criticism from the right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459955) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:40 AM Author: clear athletic conference i would have to think about this more, but off the top of my head i could easily see it having implications for AA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459958) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:44 AM Author: citrine anal stage hissy fit AA I'd probably the only policy it could have an impact on, but AA really only impacts a small number of blacks. Blacks with 1400 SATs at Harvard may have lower IQs than whites/Asians with 1580 SAT, but who really gives a crap when comparing those types of students (asides from rejected whites/Asians). I think blacks at those schools have higher graduation rates and post graduate outcomes as well. Blacks good enough to benefit from the AA focused on by xoxo probably meet basic thresholds (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459961) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:52 AM Author: clear athletic conference breh there's a huge amount of evidence that blacks are done a massive disservice by AA, but aside from that (which really is a whole diff topic), i think the driving force behind AA is that the white/black gap is environmental and it's a way to close it by exposing blacks to higher classes. obviously if IQ has a .9 genetic component then...
and AA doesn't really just affect schools, u realize? fed govt has a robust AA program. many private employers have implemented quasi AA.
and then there's just something about knowing the truth. if i were black, i think it's just important to know. if you really think that blacks are held back exclusively due to environment, i could imagine being quite bitter. knowing that there may be a merit component could be strangely liberating. who knows. again, i think transparency is just the best policy in the long run.
|
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:58 AM Author: citrine anal stage hissy fit Breh,
Few of the studies that show th impact of AA on blacks look at post school outcomes, which in kmow can be impacted by further AA, but are probably the most important.
My overall point is that AA deals with specific individual blacks with known characteristics, not random blacks. A black with a 1400 SAT is a smart black who could benefit from a top education. Is he as smart as a 1580 white? Likely not, but for the purpose of the school, he is good enough
Blacks would likely support AA regardless. Even highly performing blacks seem to be pro-AA |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:03 AM Author: clear athletic conference admittedly im less familiar with UG AA than law school AA, but if it is anything like law school the answer to "is he good enough" is "hell no". 90% of blacks in law school graduate in the bottom 10% of their class. this is wholly attributable to AA, where blacks that are at HLS would otherwise be at a ASU if they were white. there have been studies that blacks winding up in the bottom 10% has contributed to their low bar passage rates, that they would do better if they were at a lower ranked school among peers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459972) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:07 AM Author: citrine anal stage hissy fit 1) UG AA is a much bigger issue
2) HLS blacks, regardless of grades, bar rates, etc, appear to be extremely successful in law, business, politics, etc. Link me to a single black HLS grad disadvantaged by AA. I understand that further AA helps them, but to call these blacks "disadvantaged" is missing the forest from the trees |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:17 AM Author: clear athletic conference if they can't even pass the bar exam that's disadvantaged. and keep in mind the goal isn't to artificially make blacks = whites. the goal is to level the environmental field so that AA is no longer needed. if AA is designed to be a perpetual program then there's no justification for it and it's plainly unconstitutional.
and, ELIE from abovethelaw. never know, could have turned out okay if he was an ASU bro. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:22 AM Author: citrine anal stage hissy fit For one failure, I could link hundreds of successful HLS blacks... Work with one dude with a triple H (UG, MBA, Law), he is unimaginably alpha
We'll agree to disagree. I think that generally that we need to focus more on individual minorities in how we look at these policies |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:17 PM Author: aqua gaping stag film *says baseless, stupid shit*
*"agree to disagree"* |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 9:03 AM Author: Unhinged bespoke goal in life a 1400 is significantly less able than a 1580. for every 1400 black there are many, many unexceptional white kids out there who could gain just as much from an elite education. call me a reptile, but i just do not people should receive advantages on the colour of their skin (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460058) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:58 AM Author: galvanic corner dysfunction disparate impact is a much bigger deal than AA.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/06/disparate-impact-realism.html |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:02 AM Author: citrine anal stage hissy fit Credited breh, a lot of the disparate impact stuff libs have thrown out there seem like BS, but courts seem to be going against it recently, so that's that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459971) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:01 AM Author: galvanic corner dysfunction I don't understand how any intelligent person could ask a question like this. Understanding reality better will always help you make more informed decisions, even when the reality is something that you find uncomfortable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459970) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:06 AM Author: clear athletic conference (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459973) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 9:18 AM Author: Cracking plaza ratface Don't disagree with you here, but how are tests culturally biased? Never quite understood how that worked (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460086) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:25 AM Author: laughsome sooty set (guy who's taking a weekend jaunt to the REGATTA) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460382) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 12:22 PM Author: clear athletic conference *poor black reads question about kid using fancy ipad while on vacation in bahamas*
*gets confused, feels funny, can no longer count* |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 3:45 AM Author: Cyan bipolar cuck can you fuck me anally (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459609) |
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:59 AM Author: galvanic corner dysfunction if directly confronted on it many libs will admit that blacks have lower IQs, but their overall state of denial prevails in more or less every other context. read any mainstream commentary on the racial achievement gap in school -- the underlying racial IQ gap is never mentioned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20459969) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 8:58 AM Author: Unhinged bespoke goal in life libs also conveniently ignore the fact that IQ is fairly stable over a person's life. if you have a generation of low IQ blacks coming through, you need to deal with them as they are, not how you wish them to be or hope AA will make them. giving them educational advantages won't boost their underlying ability.
look at how this affects educational policy, where shitlibs think it is appropriate to compare absolute rates of achievement. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 9:30 AM Author: khaki swashbuckling party of the first part philosopher-king Most of them secretly believe it hence the clamor for paternalistic BIGGOV policies and AA to shield less intelligent/able minorities. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460103) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:45 AM Author: Gay toilet seat absolutely. it's an obvious show of perceived inferiority. URMs are fucking pathetic for accepting it without shame and embarassment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460478) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 9:37 AM Author: Shimmering Bawdyhouse Candlestick Maker I don't understand denying the racial IQ gap, but what's the point in talking about it? What course of action would such a discussion spur that would be different than what we do now? People who talk about these things are usually just being mean-spirited. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460110) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:24 AM Author: laughsome sooty set well maybe we would stop throwing more money down the rathole that is inner city "education programs" when shitlibs are AGHAST at the horrible test scores.
maybe it would convince shitlibs to stop the incessant focus on 'racism' and 'zomg the prison industrial complex and war on drugs!!!!!!!!!!' as the root cause of all black problems and instead focus on the absolute shit black family structure and culture instead. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:32 AM Author: poppy exhilarant trust fund "and instead focus on the absolute shit black family structure and culture instead."
Wait I thought the problem was genetic and couldn't be fixed? |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 6:59 PM Author: galvanic corner dysfunction IQ is genetic; unemployment, crime, and out-of-wedlock births are not. the significance of IQ being genetic is that it forces libs to admit that MOAR EDUCATION isn't the solution for blacks' social problems. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20463143) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:29 AM Author: heady mediation It's more that they're insecure racists generally. Observe this board. Ugly, unemployed, no friends, no gf, in massive debt? It's ok because your race has a higher average IQ than other races. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460403) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:42 AM Author: smoky regret i'll happily admit that east asians have a higher average IQ than my race. this isn't about insecurity for most of the people on this board. shitlibs have ruined intellectual discourse about racial disparities by making it a taboo topic. the average person now believes that IQ is a meaningless number (not true), is heavily influenced by environmental factors (not true), and does not vary between races (definitely not true). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460460) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 12:15 PM Author: heady mediation It is about insecurity for most xoxo posters. Most people on this board are failures in various areas of their lives and they cling to racism and IQ because it validates them. Do you think most people outside of xoxo give a shit how blacks perform on IQ tests as compared to whites? No. It's just not a very interesting topic to non-racists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460658) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:20 PM Author: aqua gaping stag film yet libs obsess 24/7 and spend billions of dollars based on how blacks perform on tests as compared to whites.
btw, i can make the equally unsupported accusation that most people who cling to racism as the source of their problems are just insecure losers too. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:41 PM Author: galvanic corner dysfunction normal people aren't interested in this discussion mainly because libs have done so much to keep this kind of discussion marginalized. if it were something we could speak maturely and candidly about in the public sphere, I'm sure plenty of non-racists would find it interesting. most people are interested in race on some level, and cultural and physical differences between races have long been an acceptable topic for conversation. I think people could handle knowing that IQ varies by race as well -- it's not like it's some kind of horrible thing. if we're comfortable with the fact that some individuals are smarter than others, why shouldn't we be comfortable with some groups being smarter than others? it's not as if IQ is the most important thing in life.
also, the validation that I feel from talking about this doesn't come from belonging to a high-IQ racial group, it comes from knowing something about the world that most people have been kept in the dark about. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:33 AM Author: smoky regret disparate impact is horrible, horrible policy that costs billions of dollars as well as being incredibly unfair (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460417) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:36 AM Author: Exciting Erotic Circlehead Billions upon billions in spending, other structural programs, and legal doctrines are premised on the goal of closing achievement gaps between races. The racial IQ gap story seems very relevant to the discussion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460428) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:39 AM Author: heady mediation So you would support cutting spending due to *average* scores? What about individual blacks who are smart? They deserve a shot. What about whites and Asians who happen to attend black schools?
This would be a really shitty policy. |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:40 AM Author: Exciting Erotic Circlehead Individual blacks who are smart will do just fine. And the point isn't that everything should be cut, but that statistical achievement gaps shouldn't be condemned outright as a "problem" that needs more money thrown at it. Cities shouldn't become embroiled in decade-long litigation because a neutral test yields more a disproportionate % of whites receiving the job. And so on. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460452) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:05 PM Author: galvanic corner dysfunction titcr. in the 80s some judge forced the state of missouri to pour ridiculous amounts of money into kansas city public schools in the name of racial equity -- didn't make a damn bit of difference. libs are a national embarrassment.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:40 AM Author: Unhinged bespoke goal in life see above. misdirected social policies intended to bridge gaps that can't be closed. you think this stuff carries no cost? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460454) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:49 AM Author: Shimmering Bawdyhouse Candlestick Maker All these criticisms are valid. But would you actually go out in public and say, "Blacks are genetically less intelligent and racial inequality is an intractable problem," instead of posting it on a message board? I'm 99% certain you would not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460495) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:56 AM Author: smoky regret what's your point? anonymous message boards are the perfect places to have rational discussions unhindered by bullshit PC ideology. a huge number of intelligent people have never looked seriously at the data and trust what their liberal professors tell them in school. we need to talk more about it if the misconceptions are to be overcome (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460530) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 12:06 PM Author: Shimmering Bawdyhouse Candlestick Maker My point is that you would probably not talk about such things if you would be held accountable for your words. I agree with you about racial disparities but would never say so out loud. The current approach we have of judging individuals mostly as individuals and not as group members is good. Policy favors minorities and opportunity favors whites. It seems like a good balance. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460601) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 12:23 PM Author: Gay toilet seat (wise local warning learned timetraveler man from the future against speaking things contrary to catholic church doctrines in 1616) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460708) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 7:06 PM Author: galvanic corner dysfunction (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20463185) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 12:27 PM Author: clear athletic conference since when is our current approach to judge individuals as individuals? pretty sure that's what people against AA want to have happen, not what is happening. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460726) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 12:36 PM Author: smoky regret (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460781) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2012 11:43 AM Author: Wine Supple Becky Twinkling Uncleanness Bizarre how, after at least 6 years, this flame still gets 200 posts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#20460467) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 6:40 PM Author: nyuug (Gangnam WGWAG Playboy) yeah azns are LOW IQ DURR DURR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#48110637) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 6:41 PM Author: Pumonymous (low-IQ azn) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#48110641) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 6:42 PM Author: nyuug (Gangnam WGWAG Playboy) asians are NOT INTELLIGENT DURR DURR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#48110645) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 7:10 PM Author: Pumonymous I don't mean Asians in general, just you. E.g. your inability to discern that "minority" in the thread title obviously refers to non-Asian minorities, is indicative of your low IQ. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#48110728) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 7:11 PM Author: nyuug (Gangnam WGWAG Playboy) azns UNCREATIVE azns REPETITIVE azns LOW IQ |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 7:16 PM Author: Pumonymous Having sarcastically stated some variant of "azns LOW IQ" three times now ITT, you're not really helping the case against "azns REPETITIVE" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#48110761) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 7:17 PM Author: nyuug (Gangnam WGWAG Playboy) so LOW IQ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#48110763) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 7:24 PM Author: Pumonymous nyuug: *repeats same idiotic misunderstanding of thread title four times*
nyuug: "why would anyone think azns are low IQ or repetitive?!" |
|
Date: September 19th, 2024 8:05 PM Author: nyuug (Gangnam WGWAG Playboy) so UNCREATIVE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1923616&forum_id=2#48110934) |