PUFAs And Their Influence On Political Leanings

[Sobieski]

Yes I have. Pursuing a thoroughly debunked theory is suspicious. Your motives are suspicious. Even if you came up with a new, previously unconsidered angle, I'd question your motives and to what use the knowledge could be put. Which you've not answered.

Your pure and untainted motives for wanting to know if some races are inferior are not even remotely believable.

Are you afraid of the consequences if there were differences to be found? That's what you're saying?

 

[Kartoffel]

Are you afraid of the consequences if there were differences to be found? That's what you're saying?

Isn't it kind of pointless to put this as a hypothetical questions? Our whole educational system is already based on the assumption that theses genetic differences are real. It's more or less accepted scientific consensus as I see it.

 

[managing]

You don't have to believe me, just curious as to why you wish to ban certain areas of science you don't like. As to motives, it's intellectual curiosity as human bio diversity is fascinating to me.

I am surprised it took you so long to launch the alt-right mantra of "banning" things. You know I didn't say that, but doesn't fit your narrative.

Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum and there are no disinterested observers. Its not intellectual curiosity that drives questions like that.

 

[Sobieski]

Isn't it kind of pointless to put this as a hypothetical questions? Our whole educational system is already based on the assumption that theses genetic differences are real. It's more or less accepted scientific consensus as I see it.

Not really, no. No harm in asking questions.

 

[Sobieski]

I am surprised it took you so long to launch the alt-right mantra of "banning" things. You know I didn't say that, but doesn't fit your narrative.

Knowledge does not exist in a vacuum and there are no disinterested observers. Its not intellectual curiosity that drives questions like that.

Are you for or against open scientific inquiry into these matters? Yes or no will suffice. If no- you are in favour of banning or censorship.

 

[Kartoffel]

Not

Not really, no. No harm in asking questions.

What I mean is that you can already see what the consequences are because almost everybody, including the designers of our institutions, think that it's true.

 

[Prosper]

Both of these papers cannot even be found on pubmed, and Weiss is known in Germany as a glorifier of Hitler and his racial policies, and his studies have been shown to be complete methodological Unfug. Pfiffer's paper was also rejected by the editor of the journal. The paper by Mekel-Bobrov doesn't really make any sort of causal claim and has already been rebuked for it's methodological errors.

Rejected out of scientific or ideological reasons? Since significant scientific advancements were made in Nazi Germany, appealing to the ideological leaning of the scientists in question is mere empty air. Science is science, and should remain so. I'd gladly receive links to these sources you speak of, so that I can draw my own conclusions instead of having to listen to a condescending tone.

 

[managing]

Are you afraid of the consequences if there were differences to be found? That's what you're saying?

No, but I don't trust your motives. The fact that you won't answer this question suggests I am right. Seriously, what would you do with something like that? We all know how easy it is to come up with citations like @Prosper did and how ill-equipped some people are at seeing through them.

Our German friends learned the folly of that sort of "inquiry". No wonder you try to take on @Kartoffel as well. The German experience is history smacking you in the face and asking whatsamattayou?

 

[Sobieski]

What I mean is that you can already see what the consequences are because almost everybody, including the designers of our institutions, think that it's true.

That hasn't been the case at all in my experience, maybe it's different in other parts of the world.

 

[managing]

Not really, no. No harm in asking questions.

They are called "loaded questions" for a reason. You really like this "I am just curious. I am not up to no good, I swear" schtick don't you? Do you ever encounter people naive enough to believe you?

 

[Sobieski]

No, but I don't trust your motives. The fact that you won't answer this question suggests I am right. Seriously, what would you do with something like that? We all know how easy it is to come up with citations like @Prosper did and how ill-equipped some people are at seeing through them.

Our German friends learned the folly of that sort of "inquiry". No wonder you try to take on @Kartoffel as well. The German experience is history smacking you in the face and asking whatsamattayou?

What question is that? Erroneous conclusions and data are present in all aspects of science.

 

[Sobieski]

They are called "loaded questions" for a reason. You really like this "I am just curious. I am not up to no good, I swear" schtick don't you? Do you ever encounter people naive enough to believe you?

You're making assumptions based on your own prejudices I'm afraid.

 

[Prosper]

What I mean is that you can already see what the consequences are because almost everybody, including the designers of our institutions, think that it's true.

The designers of our institutions think sugar is bad. Appealing to scientific consensus is closet authoritarianism. We are not slaves to dogma, we live to question it. For that is the only way for the dogma to improve.

 

[Kartoffel]

Rejected out of scientific or ideological reasons? Since significant scientific advancements were made in Nazi Germany, appealing to the ideological leaning of the scientists in question is mere empty air. Science is science, and should remain so. I'd gladly receive links to these sources you speak, so that I can draw my own conclusions instead of having to listen to a condescending tone.

Dude, you pretend to be certain that intelligence, and racial differences of intelligence, are genetically determined, then you post a bunch of garbage studies and made up quotes, without ever having read them, believing/hoping that nobody will notice that you just copied them from somewhere without possesing any knowledge on the matter, and now you complain about condescending tone?! Unbelievable.

 

[managing]

Are you for or against open scientific inquiry into these matters? Yes or no will suffice. If no- you are in favour of banning or censorship.

The plethora of existing pseudoscientific inquires are sufficient reason to stop asking dead questions.

Now go tell a skinhead you manufactured an opportunity to call somebody in favor of censorship. High Five!

I'll stop asking your motives. Your refusal to answer only proves my suspicions.

 

[Prosper]

Dude, you pretend to be certain that intelligence, and racial differences of intelligence, are genetically determined, then you post a bunch of garbage studies and made up quotes, without ever having read them, believing/hoping that nobody will notice that you just copied them from somewhere without possesing any knowledge on the matter, and now you complain about condescending tone?! Unbelievable.

You have no substance. I humored you by providing you what you asked. Now it's your turn to return the favor. You have not proved my point of views wrong. You have DISMISSED them.

They are called "loaded questions" for a reason. You really like this "I am just curious. I am not up to no good, I swear" schtick don't you? Do you ever encounter people naive enough to believe you?

Curiosity is a hard concept to grasp for those who have never felt its pull.

 

[Kartoffel]

You have no substance. I humored you by providing you what you asked. Now it's your turn to return the favor.

Wtf?

 

[Prosper]

Wtf?

You have dismissed everything I have attempted to post by an appeal to sources you are unwilling to provide. I at least gave you something to munch on. Why can't you do the same? Are you here to teach me, or to assert your superiority to me? I would very much like it to be the former.

 

[managing]

Rejected out of scientific or ideological reasons? Since significant scientific advancements were made in Nazi Germany, appealing to the ideological leaning of the scientists in question is mere empty air. Science is science, and should remain so. I'd gladly receive links to these sources you speak of, so that I can draw my own conclusions instead of having to listen to a condescending tone.

Anybody who actually believes that "science is science" is a fool. But you are no fool. You hope to prey on fools.

 

[Prosper]

Anybody who actually believes that "science is science" is a fool. But you are no fool. You hope to prey on fools.

What do you mean by that?