Bungee Jumper

Check the other thread, where he's already claiming voting fraud...

The irony of this coming from someone who spouts Nazi party philosophy offhand...

The issue we were arguing about was whether intelligent adults are more likely than average to have intelligent children. You, apparently, weren't convinced that intelligent parents were any more likely to produce smart children than were any other type of parents. The formula demonstrates, with mathematical precision, that the confusion you've been trying to create about the word "heritability" is counterproductive. Intelligence is passed from one generation to the next. The formula is a mathematical description of regression toward the mean. Is regression toward the mean taking place? Assuming it is, successfully convincing smart people to have more children will result in a population that's smarter than it otherwise would have been. But suppose Weiss is right, and the appearance of regression toward the mean is due entirely to measurement error. In that case, the benefits of a eugenics program would be even greater. 822744[/snapback] This is asinine. Your post makes no sense. "Assuming regression towards the mean is occurring, it means it won't happen. But it's not because it's measurement error, so I can dismiss it." You've taken stupid to a whole new level... Why not, instead of dismissing the presumed "measurement error" (sic), analyze the equation at the bulk limit where any measurement error averages out? That's a very easy thing to do, if you know any sort of math whatsoever. Of course, it still doesn't address the simple fact that the equation's wrong...but it'll at least prove to you that you're a fool.

We're talking apples to apples. No, I'm not, and the article uses "heritability" correctly. YOU use it wrong, because you don't know what it means. So the equation you're using to support your point of view doesn't actually support your point of view unless you assume it's wrong, in which case you arbitrarily attribute it to "measurement error" so you can pretend it still supports your point of view. And you actually believe this sh-- you're shoveling?

No, I can see that in you. I mean, you're still a prick and all. But it's accurate.

Learn to multi-task really well. And write really short, drive-by posts. Works for me.

A job?

Ironically, just as I hit "add reply" to that, the wife walked in.

In this administration?

But damn it, he's just such a charmer! And so well edumacated...

Uhhhhh...no, he doesn't.

1) That equation is bull sh--. The one in the article isn't, necessarily (it's incorrect for being incomplete - but not bull sh--). But naturally, you being you, you don't understand the math and !@#$ed it all up. 2) Heritability and inheritability are two different things, you fool! How many times do you have to have it explained to you? 3) I'm mocking you for taking bits and pieces of things out of context, without understanding them, to suit your own bull sh-- eugenics beliefs. Hell, if you read the Wikipedia link you provided, you'd see that it contradicts everything you've said!!!! Particularly the equation which you took out of context, which demonstrates that your eugenics program will not work!

You're cute when you're stupid.

Shhhh! Wife'll be home any minute now!

Of course. Six days to the election. More to the point, Kerry managed to make this election about Kerry. Needlessly. Even hard-core Democrats are saying "You !@#$ing idiot! It's a !@#$ing election year, and you're not running! What the hell are you doing???" The day Cheney shoots everybody in the country in the face, I'll expect an apology.

How about you prove their validity instead? Burden of proof is on the accuser, usually.

Basically, "I'm sorry you people were too stupid to know what I really meant." I can appreciate that, really. That's usually what passes for an apology from me.

I don't think he's angry. I think he's highly amused by you. I know I am.

I read the same thing...in an article on tying flies.

No, it didn't imply that. You inferred it. Erroneously, from a piss-poor study. I'm not mocking the study - though well I could. I'm mocking you.

Hey, everybody! I'm a conservative today! Remember when I was a liberal? Seems like it was just yesterday...

"Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population. Geez, if that isn't scarily accurate.

Is that the one about the hooker with dysentery?

There is that. Even if it's "I'm sorry...maybe that didn't come out how I meant it; here's what my point was..." It's usually very effective; God knows I have to do it often enough myself. And to not be stupid or humble enough to even manage that little when your party has the friggin' legislature on the line... Kerry may not be an idiot for what he said, he may not be an idiot for not apologizing, but he sure as hell is an idiot for willingly handing a bunch of beseiged Republicans a distracting hot-button issue on a silver platter a week before mid-term elections, and propagating it for two days.

Actually, at the end of the day it's all about whether or not one single person things is crossing the line, not what you think. That's Modern America for you: if anyone's offended, everyone's offended.