Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjou812
But you never prove anything of the sort. Your failure here is what makes the conversation useless.
If you had a speck of intellectual dignity, you would try to reread what you are answering about.
There is no claim I have to prove ITT because there is no claim I used to make any argument.
The whole discussion is about what would be allowed in this forum if actual claims were made.
And in this specific case one of the corners of the discussion was about chezlaw defense of lies and censorship to avoid exposing the public to some factually true notion, because of the nefarious consequences he foresees if that happens and every serious person admits the facts are actually true.
My only claim is that IF, IF, do you understand a conditional? IF some objective fact with negative connotations about a group was then found to be explained by innateness and/or events completely outside control for that group, THEN it would be easier to exculpate the group.
Moreover american obsession with race prevents you from thinking about groups divided over non ethnic lines, but the same framework applies to everything with negative moral implications.
For example very fat/obese people, the more we can prove it's genetical, the LESS criticizing them is sensible and viceversa.
Perhaps this less controversial example clarifies it for you.
Notice how I don't have to prove anything about fatness and genetics to have this conversation.
Now the same applies to group intelligence and all it's consequent outcomes, and everything else about any group under ethnical lines or any other line (sex, age, education, religion and so on and on).
If a group has a lower income ("gender income gap" for example) if you can find genetical explanations for that you have fewer reasons to criticize the lower income sex and viceversa.
Remember that "genetical explanation" doesn't require genetic determinism. Even a 5-10% genetical contribution makes a huge difference when you compare groups