Said Upyer Alley <asss> :
>You truly are an idiot, aren't you?
Namecalling.
>Blacks breed themselves. People breed themselves. It just so happens
>that selective breeding is the norm as people tend to mate with those of
>similar class and/or background. (Not to mention more attrative people
>breed with more attrative mates, and less attractive people breed with
>you.)
Gratuitous assertion without any inference to justify it.
>Thus, you've got a bunch of violent, dumb negroes breeding with lazy,
>dumb, welfare bitch negroes which results in a progeny of dumb, lazy,
>violent negroes.
Non sequitur.
>Get it?
Yes: namecalling, opinion and defective reasoning.
>Is that so difficult to understand?
No, dude, it's crystal clear: you don't have a leg to stand on.
>Ghetto sh.t breeds with ghetto sh.t and blue bloods breed with blue bloods.
More namecalling. More gratuitous assertion.
>Intelligence is highly genetic.
And more,
>Behaviors also have a genetic basis as well, albeit a weaker one.
and more. As usual, no leg to stand on.
Tsk, tsk, what a pitiful show. Try again ?
Alberto.
Petzo - 18 Feb 2004 05:22 GMT
> Said Upyer Alley <asss> :
>
>
>>You truly are an idiot, aren't you?
>
> Namecalling.
Hey, I don't like to resort to it. But I call them as I see them.
>>Blacks breed themselves. People breed themselves. It just so happens
>>that selective breeding is the norm as people tend to mate with those
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Gratuitous assertion without any inference to justify it.
Common sense. Personal observation. Try to refute it. You won't. You
can't.
>>Thus, you've got a bunch of violent, dumb negroes breeding with lazy,
>>dumb, welfare bitch negroes which results in a progeny of dumb, lazy,
>>violent negroes.
>
> Non sequitur.
Absolutely not. People tend to breed with people like them. Most people
still breed within racial and socio-economic lines.
Are you debating this??? If so, then debate it.
>>Get it?
>
> Yes: namecalling, opinion and defective reasoning.
And you: denial, ignorance, and failure to refute.
Sure, it's easy to sit back and criticize everybody else's stuff without
saying anything yourself.
I posed a question to you. You refuse to answer. There is a reason you
refuse to answer--you know I'm right. And it bothers you, Alberto.
Can't you put your biases aside and be objective for just one minute?
>>Is that so difficult to understand?
>
> No, dude, it's crystal clear: you don't have a leg to stand on.
Wrong. YOU don't have a leg to stand on.
Does the evidence support what we see in the real world??? Yes or no.
Just answer it.
>>Ghetto sh.t breeds with ghetto sh.t and blue bloods breed with blue
>>bloods.
>
> More namecalling. More gratuitous assertion.
Wrong. Anyone with common sense knows that people stick to those with
similar backgrounds.
In some societies, it is forbidden to breed outside your class. In
America, something like 95% of marriages are between those of the same
race. I can provide the stat from the government if you insist.
>>Intelligence is highly genetic.
>
> And more,
Wrong. You saw the post I made regarding correlations of intelligence.
You saw the interpretation of an expert on statistics.
Yet you deny, ignore, and dismiss.
>>Behaviors also have a genetic basis as well, albeit a weaker one.
>
> and more. As usual, no leg to stand on.
>
> Tsk, tsk, what a pitiful show. Try again ?
No, the pitiful show is on your part.
Blanket denials are not a way to prove your point. By the way, what the
hell is your point??? I don't think anyone knows.
Why don't you try presenting data to refute what we post?
By the way, I read part of your Flynn piece yesterday. Pure bullshit.
When I get the time, I'm actually going to disect the piece and work
through his mathematical models.
http://www.apa.org/journals/rev/rev1082346.html
Flynn contradicts himself.
Who's yer daddy, boy?!
King of SCAA