• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: These THREE GOALS Should Comprise Medicine's HIGHEST Priorities!

In article <stlue5da81bdu8nbneqlurlgl9otqovjri@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
<www.efaweq.com> " <x@m.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:49 -0800 (PST),
> pnyikos <nyikos2@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >  (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
<wwwergsergedy.com> wrote:
> >>  pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>  (¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯)
<wwwsrgtsergsdy.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>                   These THREE GOALS Should Comprise
> >>>>                           Medicine's HIGHEST Priorities!
>
> >>>>     Ranked in order of importance, lowest-to-highest:
> >>>>
> >>>>     3.  Develop a drug that would be made universally available
> >>>>          that would permanently raise humanity's IQ across-the-
> >>>>          board by 30+ points.  That would almost surely spell the
> >>>>          end of almost ALL manifestations of bigotry, and wars.
> >>>>          INTELLIGENT people are interested in pursuing neither.
>
> >>>    Naive on two counts: one, that IQ tests are a good measure of
> >>> intelligence; and two, confusing intelligence with being a moral,
> >>> compassionate person.  Martin Heidegger was probably highly
> >>> intelligent, but he was an avid admirer of Hitler.
>
> >>      Well, there are always exceptions to any rule.  Even a few
> >> noteworthy ones.  But how often do you see a racist or a homo-
> >> phobe whom you would regard to be truly intelligent?
>
> >     Speaking of racism...  When I was a postdoc at U. of Chicago in 1974,
> > a follower of Shockley named Banfield came to speak in Chicago on the
> > subject of IQ and the statistics showing Blacks (the *de rigeur* term
> > for African-Americans back then) to score lower on IQ tests than
> > whites.  The on-campus leftists (about whom no one knew what the
> > percentage of actual students was) were so up in arms about that, that
> > they cut the cables to the various places on campus so that the speech
> > of Banfield would not be heard outside the auditorium where he was
> > speaking.
> >
> >     As it turned out, this "precaution" was unnecessary: as soon as
> > Banfield took the mike the shouting began, including a whole group
> > chanting, "Banfield, you liar, we'll set your ass on fire!"
> >
> >    The previous day, I attended a meeting led by someone who looked
> > somewhat old for a student (even a postdoctoral student) who told us
> > about the plans for disrupting Banfield's speech.  He said that
> > Banfield had "forfeited his right to freedom of speech" by espousing
a
> > racist theory.
>
> >>      Bigotry and intelligence are mutually-exclusive.
>
> >     Not really, unless you use your own private definition of
"bigotry"
> > and/or "intelligence."  Would you say Shockely and Banfield were
> > bigots?  or unintellingent?  What about the people who disrupted the
> > talk?  the ringleader who said Banfield had "forfeited his right..."
>
>     Almost all general rules have their exceptions.  The vast majority of
> bigots are sewer-rat-turd-ignorant.
>

That's just well entrenched paranoia on the part of homosexuals
and their supporters.  Like you for example.

Antworten