>>12520680maybe you should put my statements in context?
>controlled by (((them)))the (((them))) part is a joke, but the statement about anthropologists rejecting the conclusion of races having genetically different IQs because it would be raycist!! is true
like OP says, if sociology weren't so biased, we'd have already categorised races into different subspecies
>Agree with youthey agree with me insofar as that IQ is between 50% to 80% hereditary, as was the original discussion point which you denied being the case (
>>12520581 - "[idiots saying things like] intelligence for instance, are purely genetic, or even largely genetic")
>Irrelevantsee reason 1 ("controlled by (((them)))") for why - all the data and evidence supports the conclusion that races have genetic differences in IQ, however anthropologists refuse to publicly and outright just state this conclusion
>Do you like cherries?yes they are very sweet
unfortunately I don't pick them, it's far too much work for me, I'd prefer to rather have an honest, agenda-free discussion
>Ok Sherlock, let us say you are right about everything to do with IQ and race,>What should be the solution?>A final solution?on the premise that everything I've said is true, then I want anthropologists admit that this is the truth so that academia can finally be agenda-free again
though that's probably hoping too much, agendas will pop up in other areas, but at least eliminating one agenda will put us closer to the truth
given the conclusions (i.e. that it's mostly genetic), it'd also be good to stop affirmative action
other than that, nothing that I can think of
I don't want an ethnostate
I don't want genocide
I don't want eugenics
