And then we got her retarded buddy who tried to pull the “Einstein had bad grades so anybody can be anything” move

thoughts on islam

anyone.

I could just as easily pull up a Daily Stormer article with bad explanations for data, and then use that, which is effectively what she is going to do here

Just because an explanation is present, does not mean it has to be accepted

@L0GAN first sign of depression is denial

that's a single page?

unless I'm missing where it extends

No retard

It also begins to explain it

How about look before you condescend

maybe stop with the personal attacks

You make that mistake a lot, and the cry personal attacks

For instance

I'm not paying $14 for this

Retard

The "free download" requires a log in with an institution

I created an account just fine @SilverLining

Didnt need an institution

institution.

?

but yeah, it mentions towards the bottom of the preview page...

Log in to what exactly.

You did what I said you would do, congratulations

different social and educational backgrounds

you mean actually cite the fucking thing you linked?

GASP

HOw dare I not take it at your word

and ignore the explanation

which this paper is about

stopkavanaugh.com

that but unironically

i site dedicated to stopping a serial rapist

What was it that I said earlier about being allowed to call explanations into question?

By your same retarded logic, I should send you a Daily Stormer article and make the same retarded fallacy you're doing @SilverLining

You'd have no defense for it if I did

Data can be called into questiomn

What are you talking about?

...?

There is nothing wrong with that

Oh

You're saying that it's solely racial

If an explanation is unsatisfactory, then it can be questioned

Okay, the difference is that they offer an explanation

Explain how the explanation isn't satisfactory, then.

Please.

Ryan Faulk gives explanations too

I guess by your standard he's just as valid here

I want you to defend this point

Explain how stereotype threat, and varying social/educational backgrounds don't explain enough

Why would you reject an explanation from Ryan Faulk at face value, and then accept an explanation that YOU AGREE WITH at face value, simply because it is contradictory to explanation 1? @SilverLining

How are you not aware of what youa re doing?

What is Ryan Faulk's explanation?

If you're asking what his explanation is, you just missed the point

The point I was making is that you will refuse *anything* contradictory to your position, and accept *anything* that aids it, even if it's garbage

maybe just tell me?

How am I refusing it?

Someone explain to this woman that the conversation is not about Ryan Faulk

Is me offering a rebuttal, explaining why a certain anomaly exists, "refusing" it?

I'm accusing you of back unaware that you have a bias

*being unaware

You do too

Everyone has a bias

Of course I do

I'm aware I do

you're just saying I'm not

because I'm offering a rebuttal, and explaining why a certain argument isn't valid

Remember when you cited the IQ study, and the data didn't at all match with what you said.

And I responded with, "Well, it looks like this study was biased, so I'll just stop talking about it from now on."

What could I have done instead?

sorry what?

What are we talking about?

Did that happen this conversation?

No

jesus this conversation is going nowhere

it happened earlier this month

okay, don't really remember

I just think it's interesting that you condescend from an ivory tower while being unaware of what you're doing

I don't keep online shitpost arguments at the forefront of my thoughts

Well, let me put it to you plainly:

If you haven't noticed by now, every time you ask for a source, I always give you one that is more "open" and in agreement with your position, than say, citing Ryan Faulk or some race realism site.
I do this for two reasons
1. Because you'll be more open to it.
2. Because it leaves room for you to defend yourself.

Every time I do this, you look at the article, without allowing room for exchange about what you have just saw, you point out that they have an explanation for the data (which they should), and expect the other person in the debate to accept it unquestioningly without allowing them to challenge it. You take the ground they give you to defend yourself, and then abuse it.

If you are not serious about debating the topic, sure, that's fine, but in that case, if you're in a debate server, you should expect other people to

@The Big Oof stop DESTROYING libtards with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/442001056688373791/498870809746472960/getrektet.jpg

well that was interesting

tbh

Just saying

you still haven't addressed what I've been saying

You last asked me:

"What is Ryan Faulk's position then?" and I never answered it because
1. I don't know
2. His position wasn't being invoked anyways. I was using a hypothetical example, and how you would respond to it if it happened

versus how I you would respond to it if I sent you a source that was on your side

okay...?

This has to do with the topic at hand because...?

It's not directly related, but it's indirectly related because it is addressing your method of argument

okay?

So it's not related to the topic at all

Isn't this an ad hom?

kinda

In a sense

"You're being dishonest here and not arguing in good faith"

you're attacking my supposed, hypothetical inconsistency, rather than my actual points

not really an ad hom

he's not attacking you, he's attacking the method by which you stated your case

I mean

okay?

@katie yes

So what's the error in how I set it up now?

I offered a myriad of source-independent points regardless...

The error is not your position, it's how you expect it to be debated and your disingenuous standard

I don't really see how the standard is disingenuous

I'd accept any counterpoint really

I'm just using the source out of convenience

you could argue the source contains some illegitimate points

I could argue said points are legitimate

Of course you can argue that it has a legitimate position, but you don't allow the opposition the opportunity to argue against it

my general pattern of typing involves short fragments, which when combined make a full sentence

or point

or something to that effect

If that's what you're complaining about...?

If I take issue to something, I'll try to refute it point by point

Well from what I understand in my genetics course is that 1) many traits are multifactorial, those that arent or rather a multitude fo traits that combine together to form a clinical picture are associations and these go on to syndromes in the case of defects. Syndromes are genetic however their cause is multifactorial. Much like IQ has a genetic range, most people will land in the average and I mean the VAST majority. Those that dont have either a medical issue or alternatively a gift. If you reach your genetic potential for IQ that is the enviormental factors as well as factors of your development matter. However there is marked variation between populations that cna be seen by country averages, the result is that we can then extrapolate racial differences as well as well as differences in "styles" of thought through other tests etc. Its not brutally deterministic but there is a reason country X looks like it does and country Z looks the way it does. Most often it is due to the peope inside the country, rarely is it due to people outside the country. (This has been recently shifted as well).

Essentially genes matter, there will be differences, and basically the racial IQ debate is somewhat pointless since it does exist, however what matters is rather now the science of basically populations.

Can X live with Y in peace, under what circumstances generally speaking we have the answer but because of some false virtues we are afraid to say otherwise because we are afraid of devaluing someones life, making them subhuman when thats not whats happening at all. And all debates centered around population differences need to avoid this like the plague otherwise we jump into the realm of opinion and some really wonky mental gymnastics rather than truth.

@The American Nationalist MUSLIMS ARE THE SIMPTON!!JEWS ARE THE CAUSE!!!!

<@&452955169219543040> stupid

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

Will the U.S grow faster than China, ever for the future? Will China permanently or only temporarily surpass the U.S economically?

Don't know

the US can't grow faster currently

idk

when china catches up GDP wise maybe

China will grow faster, then crash

Chinas economy has nearly unlimited slave labour, they’ll grow

I don't think they will ever actually surpass the us

China's GNP is already several trillion greater than the US. However, their GDP is starting to smooth out, which also bears in it now having some "growing pains".

The chinese as a people are getting older

The same problem europe is having will happen to china in the next 10-15 years

U.s is gonna grow but not at the same rate. I can imagine the US going at a more consistent rate. China will probably fluctuate.

It really depends on how Trump does in this trade war. If Trump can exploit the vulnerabilities in the Chinese economy then China will crash and have a tough time trying to recover

China's going to pass the US

China has the option of just letting their old die though

in terms of GDP

The US population is aging too

most populations are

Sans immigrants

Not to neglect migrants, of course, though with xenophobic, isolationist attitudes...

Well, the US is definitely going to be aging

yeah, the US's tfr is 1.9

Not terrible, but below replacement by a fair bit

to be fair, China has a lower tfr, but that's artificial

Hello.

China will surpass the United States

China will surpass the US simply because they are not a democracy and can implement reforms faster to face long term problems, like the fertility rate.
To to be fair the male/female ratio in China is going to cause some problems in the future

The cost of that is the second the government becomes weak or stops producing results everything collapses @名被盜

They can’t use the militaristic strategy since they have a massive population and working class

Militarism isn't really enough to dominate the world anyways

At least, in the 21st century

It is

Not really

It's all about that GDP

You just have to have support from the US

Especially manufacturing industries imo

Look at Israel for example

chad israel

Not known for being a world power

not a world power but doesn't need to be

it has dominance in the region

only threat is Iran

Israel is literally conquering middle eastern nations and asserting itself on their people

And the US loves it for some reason

The middle east is the one exception

'cuz actual wars

Also Christians. The reason is Christians.

Lebanon?

I’d say anywhere between Eastern Europe and the Far East is susceptible

But besides in the middle east, the military doesn't really matter terribly much

Especially major powers

There is 0 threat of China being invaded

If you're nuclear, you're safe more or less

Between

Not including

inb4 mongols

I will cede that's a valid threat.

The Chinese need a way to combat horse archers

*return of the hordes*

Why must nukes of been invented

Good question. I think a lot of people are wondering about the future of China and America right now.

I have no idea. So many unknowns

imo China has shown to be a good opponent

depending on the next few US Presidents and the compitency of China to see who will come out on top

.

.

.

.

.

,

China numba wan

all you economics brainlets

Muh GDP

GDP Dosen't fucking matter

And that's not even accurate

Under current administration eco growing at over 3% and 4%

China's economy is starting to level out and mellow, while the U.S's is only increasing.

USA will always be number one until we destroy ourselves

You spell wan like the Chinese so I see why you make biased charts that are unproven.

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

With nationalist parties gaining power in Europe, will Europe return to 'normality' of nationalism? Or will the globalists/eurocrats prevail?

it depends on the type of nationalism

some nationalistic types want to bring back old governments ie: monarchies, which is dumb imo

but I feel like a more modern type of nationalism could prevail

I think some countries will return to nationalism and others will devolve into civil war once they realize after it is too late

Germany is an odd spot because of muh holocaust, but it's a genuine concern within the population that a rise of nationalism would bring back 1900s style diplomacy of bring cold-handed towards each-other

if Europe doesn't manage to send a lot of people back... nothing meters, anything they do is palliative...

I doubt civil wars would start due to eurocratic governments

the largest thing I expect is a string of violent riots, maybe even a coup

but that's it

Nah

A civil war would start

EU recently announced activation of "European Union Army"

They're going to use it to coup any anti-EU sentiment

Bet.

Then you'd have a civil war

an EU army huh?

probably would only be used for civil control

maybe if the nationalists act civil shit will pass without blood

the blackpilled say globalist

the white pilled say nationalists

i really dont know

@Deleted User "civil"
EU already did a soft coup de ta in Italy by blocking a democratic election

He who is not angry when there is cause for anger is immoral

yeah because Italy is in a fucking political crisis, they had to hold it up before 5 politicians die

you take a moderately stable nation willing to change to nationalists and there you go

@Deleted User Italy was not in a political crisis. The EU said it was, it wasn't. The only "crisis" was that the nationalist parties were on track to gain power. There were no riots, there we're no threats of violence or death.

I barely remeber what happened but from what I hear the election was a fuck off mess and it wasn't clear who won.

The EU did what they're sort of supposed to and swooped in to put in a candidate in charge

it was obviously going to be pro-EU

@Deleted User You have bad memory than, because it was a near landslide for the nationalist collation, not an unclear election. EU stated the election was "a Grave threat to the European Project" and used it to justify medelling in a sovereign nation's elections and override it. The EU overriding a democratic election is a clear warning sign.

may I have a source?

@Doctor Anon @Deleted User the Eu is literally made to prevent nationalism

I mean

After the events of the world wars nationalism wasn’t too popular...

yeah

its goal was obviously to promote cooperation in Europe rather than have a "fuck-you" sentiment towards everyone

Like it wasn’t that bad until they became niglet and kike worshipers

Nationalism survived in the U.S despite ww2

It actually increased

US =/= EU

Ik

yeah because America's role became more pronounced

Nationalism isn’t too big in america rn because of lefties

Nationalism was only seen as bad because their entire nation was broken, so there was no pride, not that is was bad.

basically, the last century had left a sour taste in everyones mouth

Being patriotic = being nationalist = being fascist = nazism. in the eyes of the left

Deli

Nationalism is skyrocketing in the EU

alright and?

True