LiveWire Network Peer Answers Peer Support Teen Forums Tech Forums College Forums 344 users online 275513 members 27 active today Advertise Here Sign In
TeenCollegeTechPhotos | Quizzes | LiveSecret | Memberlist | Dictionary | FAQ
You have 1 new message.
Emergency Help
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.

Sign Up Now
Membername:
Password:
Already have an account?
Invite Friends
Active Members
Groups
Contests
Moderators
0 online / 0 MPM
Fresh Topics
  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Science & Business / Viewing Topic

Genes for intelligence discovered
Replies: 26Last Post Jan. 28, 2016 5:45pm by SHOAHizfunny
Welcome to LiveWire!
We're Stronger Together.
Join the Community
Pages: 1 2 Email Print Favorite
Jim Raynor


Terran Fuckface

Patron
Reply
Quote: from Friendship is Magic at 12:02 pm on Dec. 24, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 9:18 am on Dec. 24, 2015

Aren't you the same person as the OP?

...really?

its hard to tell if youre not socks of each other. Youre both wanna be neo nazis who probably spam "nigger" as much as you an irl

-------
Remember kids, don't support nazis or ex-gay posers.

10:24 am on Dec. 27, 2015 | Joined: Sep. 2008 | Days Active: 650
Join to learn more about Jim Raynor Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada | Straight Male | Posts: 33,575 | Points: 36,810
LiveWire Humor
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 6:37 am on Dec. 26, 2015

No, I think posting a news article to a general audience is sufficient for opening discussion purposes.

I agree. And if the OP had posted an article and added 'discuss' that would have been fine.


I notice you glossed over my point that you incorrectly claimed the OP 'miscomprehended' something.

I have covered that in rather more detail elsewhere in this post. If you have an issue with my analysis of the OP's take on the article, make specific reference to it. Otherwise I can do little more than refer you back to earlier in the thread.


How does law school work where you are? Does that mean you've been studying law for 7 years?

No. We take a more 'hands on' approach to learning, formal education takes either 2 or 4 years, depending on previous qualifications. Then you train in practice for 2 years. However, the stage I am at, is irrelevant as this thread isn't even about law per se. I used that example to make the point that reporting on an issue within a profession rarely, if ever, gives a good account of what is  going on. As a lawyer, I know not to trust media accounts of judgements and to read them myself.

Applying the same principle, a media report on scientific experiment is probably not the best place to go to in order to get a full account of the methodology and implications. I'll take your silence on the issue as agreement, until you say otherwise.


7:14 am on Dec. 30, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 7:14 am on Dec. 30, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 6:37 am on Dec. 26, 2015

 
No, I think posting a news article to a general audience is sufficient for opening discussion purposes.

 

I agree. And if the OP had posted an article and added 'discuss' that would have been fine.  


I notice you glossed over my point that you incorrectly claimed the OP 'miscomprehended' something.
 

I have covered that in rather more detail elsewhere in this post. If you have an issue with my analysis of the OP's take on the article, make specific reference to it. Otherwise I can do little more than refer you back to earlier in the thread.  


How does law school work where you are? Does that mean you've been studying law for 7 years?

 

No. We take a more 'hands on' approach to learning, formal education takes either 2 or 4 years, depending on previous qualifications. Then you train in practice for 2 years. However, the stage I am at, is irrelevant as this thread isn't even about law per se. I used that example to make the point that reporting on an issue within a profession rarely, if ever, gives a good account of what is  going on. As a lawyer, I know not to trust media accounts of judgements and to read them myself.  

Applying the same principle, a media report on scientific experiment is probably not the best place to go to in order to get a full account of the methodology and implications. I'll take your silence on the issue as agreement, until you say otherwise.


Why does it require 'detail' to explain how exactly the OP 'miscomprehended' the news article when the title and two of three sentences in the OP were from the article?

I'm guessing the OP 'miscomprehended' nothing and you are merely saving face by not admitting you were wrong and beating around the bush.

Are you sure you're a lawyer/in law school?

Post edited at 4:08 pm on Dec. 30, 2015 by SHOAHizfunny


4:07 pm on Dec. 30, 2015 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 4:07 pm on Dec. 30, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 7:14 am on Dec. 30, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 6:37 am on Dec. 26, 2015


 No, I think posting a news article to a general audience is sufficient for opening discussion purposes.

I agree. And if the OP had posted an article and added 'discuss' that would have been fine.


I notice you glossed over my point that you incorrectly claimed the OP 'miscomprehended' something.

I have covered that in rather more detail elsewhere in this post. If you have an issue with my analysis of the OP's take on the article, make specific reference to it. Otherwise I can do little more than refer you back to earlier in the thread.

 


How does law school work where you are?  Does that mean you've been studying law for 7 years?  
 

No. We take a more 'hands on' approach to learning, formal education takes either 2 or 4 years, depending on previous qualifications. Then you train in practice for 2 years. However, the stage I am at, is irrelevant as this thread isn't even about law per se. I used that example to make the point that reporting on an issue within a profession rarely, if ever, gives a good account of what is going on. As a lawyer, I know not to trust media accounts of judgements and to read them myself.

Applying the same principle, a media report on scientific experiment is probably not the best place to go to in order to get a full account of the methodology and implications. I'll take your silence on the issue as agreement, until you say otherwise.


Why does it require 'detail' to explain how exactly the OP 'miscomprehended' the news article when the title and two of three sentences in the OP were from the article?

I'm guessing the OP 'miscomprehended' nothing and you are merely saving face by not admitting you were wrong and beating around the bush.

Are you sure you're a lawyer/in law school?


Believe what you want. But I already set out my points and you have not refuted them. Note that I did not say that the content of the article had been misrepresented but the issue. Which brought me to my point that you should probably see how your sources stand up before you blindly adhere to them?

Must you always change the scope of a discussion to prove very narrow points that aren't really that damaging? Or do you just like to feel that you're smarter? In either case, this is a rather poor attempt.

Well, if I'm not a lawyer, going in front of a judge was a big mistake...


12:41 am on Dec. 31, 2015 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Disbelief at 12:41 am on Dec. 31, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 4:07 pm on Dec. 30, 2015

Quote: from Disbelief at 7:14 am on Dec. 30, 2015

Quote: from SHOAHizfunny at 6:37 am on Dec. 26, 2015

   
  No, I think posting a news article to a general audience is sufficient for opening discussion purposes.

   

 I agree. And if the OP had posted an article and added 'discuss' that would have been fine.    

 


I notice you glossed over my point that you incorrectly claimed the OP 'miscomprehended' something.
   

 I have covered that in rather more detail elsewhere in this post. If you have an issue with my analysis of the OP's take on the article, make specific reference to it. Otherwise I can do little more than refer you back to earlier in the thread.    

 


How does law school work where you are? Does that mean you've been studying law for 7 years?  
 

   

 No. We take a more 'hands on' approach to learning, formal education takes either 2 or 4 years, depending on previous qualifications. Then you train in practice for 2 years. However, the stage I am at, is irrelevant as this thread isn't even about law per se. I used that example to make the point that reporting on an issue within a profession rarely, if ever, gives a good account of what is  going on. As a lawyer, I know not to trust media accounts of judgements and to read them myself.    

 Applying the same principle, a media report on scientific experiment is probably not the best place to go to in order to get a full account of the methodology and implications. I'll take your silence on the issue as agreement, until you say otherwise.


 

 Why does it require 'detail' to explain how exactly the OP 'miscomprehended' the news article when the title and two of three sentences in the OP were from the article?  

 I'm guessing the OP 'miscomprehended' nothing and you are merely saving face by not admitting you were wrong and beating around the bush.  

 Are you sure you're a lawyer/in law school?


Believe what you want. But I already set out my points and you have not refuted them. Note that I did not say that the content of the article had been misrepresented but the issue. Which brought me to my point that you should probably see how your sources stand up before you blindly adhere to them?

Must you always change the scope of a discussion to prove very narrow points that aren't really that damaging? Or do you just like to feel that you're smarter? In either case, this is a rather poor attempt.

Well, if I'm not a lawyer, going in front of a judge was a big mistake...


You claimed a "miscomprehension" was packed into three lines regarding the OP.  

What was "miscomprehended" in those three lines?

Please highlight the relevant comment and show how it was "miscomprehended".


11:05 am on Jan. 3, 2016 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Disbelief


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
I already did that.

4:51 am on Jan. 4, 2016 | Joined: Dec. 2015 | Days Active: 271
Join to learn more about Disbelief | Posts: 1,603 | Points: 4,348
Kaijuu


Ice King

Patron
Reply
Time to figure out how to use this knowledge to increase intelligence

11:13 am on Jan. 20, 2016 | Joined: Oct. 2008 | Days Active: 1,237
Join to learn more about Kaijuu Wisconsin, United States | Label Free Female | Posts: 37,547 | Points: 47,603
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Kaijuu at 11:13 am on Jan. 20, 2016

Time to figure out how to use this knowledge to increase intelligence

Blacks lack some intelligence genes.  :-)


11:00 am on Jan. 28, 2016 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Kaijuu


Ice King

Patron
Reply
Some. Iike anyone else. A Normal human would focus on what we can do yo manipulate these genes rather than demonizing people

11:46 am on Jan. 28, 2016 | Joined: Oct. 2008 | Days Active: 1,237
Join to learn more about Kaijuu Wisconsin, United States | Label Free Female | Posts: 37,547 | Points: 47,603
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Kaijuu at 11:46 am on Jan. 28, 2016

Some. Iike anyone else. A Normal human would focus on what we can do yo manipulate these genes rather than demonizing people

Actually, all the genes looked at in a study showed Blacks had lower frequencies (or higher frequencies when the genes were inversely proportional to educational attainment).

I'm not demonizing Blacks anymore than I'm demonizing a monkey when I say Whites are more intelligent and less aggressive than both.

I also wouldn't want to live in a society with feral monkeys...

Post edited at 3:38 pm on Jan. 28, 2016 by SHOAHizfunny


3:37 pm on Jan. 28, 2016 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Kaijuu


Ice King

Patron
Reply
That's demonizing.  You're ridiculous

5:06 pm on Jan. 28, 2016 | Joined: Oct. 2008 | Days Active: 1,237
Join to learn more about Kaijuu Wisconsin, United States | Label Free Female | Posts: 37,547 | Points: 47,603
SHOAHizfunny


Dairy Product Addict
Reply
Quote: from Kaijuu at 5:06 pm on Jan. 28, 2016

That's demonizing. You're ridiculous

Please explain.


5:45 pm on Jan. 28, 2016 | Joined: July 2015 | Days Active: 149
Join to learn more about SHOAHizfunny | Posts: 767 | Points: 2,256
Pages: 1 2 Email Print Favorite

Quick Reply

You are signed in as our guest.

Looking for something else?
 

  LiveWire / Teen Forums / Science & Business / Viewing Topic