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