Discussion

Hey guys, just a liberal from Europe looking for a discussion. I feel like the right and the left have reached a point of no respect, no actual debate to be held. I'm looking for a civilized debate without name-calling and I will try my best to respond to all of your serious questions.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Pp1wVPeg59Q
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

If you're able to have a reasonable discussion, you're going to eventually be called a Nazi by your peers on the left.

Okay, demonstrate in a scientifically testable method how all humans are of equal worth and therefore deserving of equal rights.

Yes, this. Liberals do not make any kind of sense, and it is getting worse.

>equal

Are you a larp fag and if not why the corny pic?

Sorry, you won't be able to do any of that on Sup Forums, go somewhere else if you want a "civilized debate", there are no decent people on Sup Forums

Eat shit, fucking cuck faggot.

You know the left-right paradigm is a divide and conquer tactic?
Only one side has to fall for it for it to work, and right now its the left, since the right is fighting the ones doing the dividing.
Anyone on the left is effectively defending satanic pedophiles at this point.

WRONG

There's always reasonable debate on here. You just have to trudge through shit to find it.

>species is determined by what you look like

american education

"liberalism" is a meaningless term. There are so many different, competing and frankly incompatible ideologies under the banner of "liberalism" that it is absurd that you think you can speak on behalf of all of them and insulting that you expect us to believe you.

>troll

...

Easy - you do realize that the differences between races are minimal right? We can reproduce with each other - therefore our genome isn't all that different. You could do IQ tests, but they would be pretty much useless given the class difference. Since you have so much interference, you cannot use scientific method to do this - you'll never, ever, ever get a clear sample. What you could do is gene analysis - that could prove beyond reasonable doubt that any two races are equal.

I'll just leave this here
youtube.com/watch?v=Pp1wVPeg59Q

Because there is a difference between instinctual behaviour and cultural behaviour. So, our instincts are the same, therefore, one race, but our cultures are different.

Libertarian with economic liberal values (universal healthcare, education etc.)

My issue with liberalism (in terms of economics, I align most closely to libertarian, so I am generally liberal on social issues except with feminism and black nationalism) is that I am wealthy (or my parents are). If I were to be voting liberal, I would actually be voting against my own interests. On top of this it just doesn't mesh well with my personality. I'd rather succeed or fail than fail comfortably or mildly succeed. Additionally, I'm a very hard worker, well above average in terms of intelligence, and have a wide network of friends in many industries, making my probability of success much higher than the average person's.

In the US, the closest person we have to s European liberal would be Bernie Sanders. Now, I have a lot of problems with him, namely that he is financially illiterate. His explanation of the 2008 financial crisis is 100% incorrect and he uses this (of course his own explanation of it which is more or less "the rich bankers crashed the economy because of greed/overs-peculation") to support restrictions on Wall Street and economic freedom. Basically he is to Wall Street as Hitler was to the jews (he uses them as a scapegoat and is only actually correct about it a handful of times, but is incorrect on the whole).

cuck faggot

I have a lot of respect for traditional conservatives. Hey man, that is what elections are for - we collectively choose what benefits the most of us, with regards to minority populations (rich, super poor, black etc.). I thank you for this response, since it's the only one that doesn't concern race or conspiracy. I was born.. not so well off. I also work hard, have my own company (starting from scratch), but I understand that without universal healthcare, I wouldn't be alive today (most likely). In regards to wall street - we do need to regulate the market more so that global crysis isn't upon us every few years. I disagree with his rhetoric there, because blaming them for policy missteps of former administration is like blaming a prisoner that got out early out of jail.

that doesn't really mean anything and it still doesn't explain how you can defend liberalism as a concept when you are only advocating for your own narrow interpretation of it.

Liberal in Europe (and Straya) means libertarian in the US. Europe libs are good guys, progressives or democrats are bad.

I'm not defending liberalism, I'm looking for a debate. Not a debate with fucking Vox, but a debate with me.

I'm not a pure capitalist as I do agree with some market regulation (consumer protection and employee protection for instance). I'm stuck on healthcare. I think that the ultimate problem is health insurance companies. They usually only pay a fraction of the sticker cost for any medical procedure, which means that in order to get the money a practice needs, they need to jack up the price of appointments/procedures. Therefore, if you don't have insurance you need to pay a shitload more than you would if insurance companies didn't exist. I think there should be a cap on the cost of procedures and a rule stating that the insurance company is required to pay the sticker cost of the procedure. Similarly I support public education and think that public colleges should have a cap on tuition and other fees.

I know that at some point universal income may be a necessity as everything becomes automated and jobs don't exist anymore, but that will present a lot of issues. Everything from funding universal income to a population who no longer has a job/purpose.

Yeah - public healthcare and education are impossible to do without state regulating the prices of both. I really like the fact that you know about universal income - I don't think that time has necesarily come yet, or that it MUST come at all.. But it is one of possible concepts for the future. If we were congressmen, we could cooperate pretty nicely.

Yo, and by the way, this is the very same post that got banned on 8ch... Just for those wondering if there isn't censorship on the right wing.

I feel like liberalism has become a culet of self-righteous bullies.

If you don't support preferential treatment of women, you are a sexist.
If you don't support preferential treatment of foreigners over citizens, you are a racist.
If you think someone who has gender dysphoria needs help with their mental illness, you are a transphobic.

I feel like the only reason they won the culture wars of the 90s-now was because people were afraid of the personal stigma by well meaning but slanderous assholes.

Weirdly, more than ever I meet more conservatives my age. They find the world odd, and don't like where it is going. Ten years ago I would struggle to find a conservative my age.

How do you justify universal healthcare through taxation being a violation of the NAP?

Not preferential, I would actually prefer if Family Court in America treated men equally and if drafts were for both men and women

Not preferential treatment, but help in time of need for both.

The best (and so far only one that doesn't have violent side effects) cure for gender dysphoria is sex change (works like a miracle)..

Yeah, ironically, the new boost of conservatives is more about liberal media, than conservatives themselves.. So NOBODY, not liberal, nor conservative can say that liberal media are useless now.

Any taxation would be a violation of NAP. I think the best justification for taxation and for healthcare in general is that your rights end where the rights of others begin.. in this case, their right to live.

Sorry it took me so long to answer.. You can say the same about the words "cuck" or "commie" when a conservative admits to some liberal values. This is precisely why I created this thread. To inspire discussion without the need to use those terms.

There is no way it is a miracle.

Trans persons, both pre and post surgery, have very poor outcomes, particularly relating to suicide.

And now that you have established pandering to the mentally ill as a treatment, what do you do with dragonkin? Headmates?

It is a losing strategy - it trivialises legitimate mental health issues and glorifies them with attention, creating a snowball effect.

I'm not sure why you say that the liberal media isn't useless now. If anything, their lax standards, Obama worship and peddling of nonsense fringe issues is what has given rise to fake news.

When people like Alex Jones have as much credibility at CNN, your institution has basically failed.

Yeah, all taxation is theft. Shouldn't you work to decrease society dependence on stolen property, not to increase it?

kek is this from Hip Hughes off youtube? that guy's videos aren't too bad actually.

Yeah, I'm guessing it has something to do with massive social discrimination against them and the same goes for gay children raised in homophobic households.

There is no legitimate scientific evidence of dragonkin. Not a tumblrina here.

CNN is hardly my institution, and yeah, IT failed tremendously. That is why we should have debates amongst ourselves.

And some self-defense is killing, yet it is not prosecuted, because it was the right thing to do at the moment. Your rights to a property do not supercede the rights of other people to live.

Actually, just picked random picture, so, maybe.

Universal basic income is an idea I just can't justify as a capitalist.The thing is, you know that money has to come from somewhere, and where does it come from? Mostly from the people who are working at jobs that can't be automated. Essentially, when you get right down to it, universal basic income is the rich paying the state to take their own money and then give it to their clientele for doing nothing. I just can't see that as right or fair.

Universal income is basically the idea that at a certain point it will be impossible to survive in any other class than the highest 0.0001%, which will have basically all the wealth in the world. So the question really becomes, do they starve while the rich have so much money that they will not spend it in their lifetime? Is it fair to let someone die, someone who had no chance at living just so that the super-rich can keep the money they won't use?

Why would our instincts be the same if we lived apart for thousands of years?
Abbos sleep on the road for fuck sakes, my instincts tell me not to sleep where large objects travel at high speeds.

That's not an instinct, that is knowing what a car is.

You can't blame those extreme suicide rates on discrimination. There's been plenty of groups treated far worse that didn't have similar suicide rates.

The problem with this issue is Liberals have made it almost impossible for this to be labeled as a mental illness. People who try to research this are labeled transphobic. There could be a drug that could help those people coup and make their lives much better, but researching a simple solution like a pill is actively discouraged.
Actually I think someone did try it once, and it actually showed signs that it might work, if any user has the info on the study.

Humans have evolved to socially discriminate. It has an important evolutionary purpose - to ensure that only acceptable deviations from the norm propagate through a community and that change is managed in a way that ensures the cohesion of communities.

Trans folk present themselves both in terms of demeanour and appearance as an affront to society. That is why.

Not that social discrimination is a valid excuse anymore. Schools, universities, public works all accept them now. Through the internet they can find common ground and build communities.

If you have ever been to one though, you find they are cess-filled pits of hatred. It is no wonder they are depressed - they withdraw from life to blame unseen hands and micro aggressions for their terrible life choices instead of honest self reflection and regaining control of their lives.

If you can throw dragonkin under a bus because you physically can't be a dragon, would you deny a self diagnosed transwoman publically funded surgery if there was no physical evidence of being intersexual? Or is it legitimate just because some people are intersex?

Yeah, because those groups usually had family that has been the same. Jews found support in jewish families, blacks found support in their own families who had to deal with the same discrimination.

But if you are gay or trans and your family rejects you, that will make you sooner kill yourself than apartheid, because family is very important to your mental well being.

>and if drafts were for both men and women
That's because you're being retarded and don't understand the inherent biological differences.
Women being on the battlefield will not only hurt men but will hurt the race as a whole.

No it's an instinct mixed with basic logic, I said large objects. If it were a travel path for horses, moose, rhinos, etc, I wouldn't sleep there either.
We are not equal.

I know someone who is trans, one of the coolest dudes I know. Don't judge people based on tumblr, if I did that to you I would be yellin' "NNAAAAAZIIIIII".. But I don't. Social discrimination is a very valid excuse in communities where they will become pariah to their own family. That we get rid of the perception of them as being wrong (same with gays) is imperative for their well being. While you are right that we evolved to discriminate, what basis of discrimination we choose is completely nurture.

i will go to your house and rape you

The problem with this is that once the lower classes are that size and the wealth disparity that huge, how does the state maintain its power. Assuming the state gets its revenue from taxation, perhaps Uncle Moneybags decides he doesn't much like the government taking such a massive percentage of his money for redistribution, so he talks to his other moneybags friends. All it would take is a couple hundred rich guys saying, "No. We're not paying taxes anymore," and all of a sudden the State doesn't have enough to feed its people. What are they going to do about it? Use force? With what army? They're not getting any tax money to pay their soldiers anymore.

That's why I think that, if regulations must be in place, it must be regulating the level of automation a business is legally allowed to use, not a universal basic income.

You do realize that the army separates different roles for different people? You can still have BOTH restrictions on extremely physically demanding work AND draft.

>blacks found support in their own families who had to deal with the same discrimination
Not their dads though.
>But if you are gay or trans and your family rejects you, that will make you sooner kill yourself than apartheid
Good.

my ass is ready.

And how are they not going to fuck up those roles? They're emotional creatures who bleed once a month.
You also forget the reason going back millenniums to why women never went to war: the men die, someone needs to raise the next generation.

That is why it must happen gradually, so that when the time comes, uncle moneybags is not that rich.. also, state-owned industry to a certain extent is not a horrible thing.. it works pretty well when the country owns 51% share in their own energy sources.

Thanks for ignoring the meat of the post. You wanted a discussion but you are cherry picking big time. You didn't even answer the direct question.

I'm glad your friend is a cool dude - that isn't the same thing as systemic issues and trying to improve outcomes for young people.

BTW, nazi hasn't been considered an insult in Sup Forums ever. It's exactly the attitude that legitimate debate is not acceptable that led to Trump - enjoy the next 8 years.

Shit, sorry, didn't finish reading the last part. Self-diagnosis means you pay for it yourself. If a qualified physician diagnoses you, well then you get the sex change. There is plenty of evidence to support the existence of transsexuality (brain scans of transsexuals from what I rememeber).

Yeah, I know, that is why I'm trying to set a new standart. An actual debate, cause it makes me sick to hear Maher and the rest talk about the right like it's some kind of coocoo town on air, day after day.

You keep comparing gays and trans like they are the same thing. The suicide rates aren't any where near the same. And these groups aren't the only ones that face isolation and rejection from their family. Atheists in religious homes face similar rejection. And Orphans don't have familys.
I'm sure segments of society don't make the lives of a trans person any easier, i'm not saying they don't take their share of shit or anything like that. But that still does not explain the extreme suicide rates. Mental illness might tho. And I think denying that as a possibility is directly harmful to the well being of these people. Liberals aren't doing them any favors.

liberals here in Chicago will seriously have a meltdown down and start yelling if they know you voted trump. Most people tell me I'm the only trump voter they've ever met. The breakdown of discussion is 100% due to the culture that has grown around the left in the last 10 years or so.

Where do you think the culture of the left is heading? Do you think they will double down on their recent insanity?

Also in defense of the insult "cuck", it is a half-ironic insult that is usually used against people who are inauthentically virtue signaling. So I've never seen it as something that destroys debate.

This is the information age.
If you are anything but a genocidal fascist after more than five years of internet usage, you are a traitor to Humanity and the only exchange i want with you is putting a bullet through your brainstem.

Anybody feel like the debate is pretty much over between the left and the right?

It's obvious that we all want different things, and we're on completely opposite sides of the spectrum.

The democrat and republican platform is so completely opposite at this point, we both want totally different futures and a different country.

If the left doubles down right now.. it's going to be strikes nationwide.. To put it in another terms, I would be scared, and I'm a Berniefag. As far as I know, when we elected our kind of trump (Zeman), I also hated him, but I also respected those who could debate me. So, left everywhere is not nearly as insane as the left in Chicago, if that makes you feel any better.

As for our future, I really don't have the faintest idea. If groups like Justice Democrats start winning, it will be peachy.. if not, then the blaming, screeching, screaming will continue, sadly.

The political extremes do. But recently, for example, progressives and tea-party members cooperated to help limit corruption.. I think something like ballot initiative? I think there are some videos on youtube too, if anyone is interested.

In your country? Or usa?

when will people such as yourself accept the fact that not all people as born the same and wealth redistribution never results in desired outcome?
why do you feel the need for ever-increasing government command&control over citizens?

Here in Chicago, young leftists are doubling down by getting into antifa. Some have just accepted the outcome and given up, but many are ramping up the "punch a nazi" meme.

I know Sup Forums flexes, but we will probably never get violent. We all subconsciously assume that the police will take care of it eventually.

Seems like it's getting totally off the rails here in America though. 40-80 year olds are saying they've never seen it like this

>our instincts are the same, therefore, one race
It doesn''t work like that you lefty cuck. We are same species because we can create fertile offsprings.

>We all subconsciously assume that the police will take care of it eventually.
Under Trump's rule yeah we will.
Aside from that, there are the more violent sites like ironmarch that'll happily be our antifa, and a large number of the natsoc's wouldn't back down after being punched, they'd return with deadly force.

I thought that we are the same species was obvious. However, there are certain species that create fertile offspring, yet are different - dog and wolf or brown bear and polar bear.

Do you think it will happen? Like a civil war?

Like the stabbings of the antifas. Like 6 of em got stabbed when they started harrassing the natsocers.

Was pretty lulzy.

Not likely, lefties aren't retarded enough to go against the army when they don't have many guns.
I think the only chance of a civil war right now is if the hispanic population revolts for Trump being an ebil waycist. Or if Trump cuts off welfare, wouldn't put anything past niggers.

I think your average right winger is waking up to the fact that we can punch lefties if they attack us. We can also get dirty and call them names now, like we couldn't before because of "muh conservative principles".

But yeah right wingers won't organize and fight under trump. Kinda scared what will happen when democrats win again. No idea who they will run, and I have a feeling that dems are going to act really really really fucking nuts when they win next time

Justice Democrats is a bad meme that will fail, Cenk Uygur is involved. And calling yourselves "Justice" anything in this political climate is just asking for trouble. If they could break off with all the cancer and progressives and become irrelevant, it may save the democratic party tho.

It's beyond 'you and me', as a collective conversations are finishing up.
Action (violence) seems all that remains...

I tried having this discussion a few weeks ago and I only got insulted and told how I should read more. I'm no fanboy of the Republican party, but I feel like the left has really painted itself into a corner. We're seeing a generation of people who can't function of they're given an opposing view, they don't see why the idea of free expression is an absolute necessity for free society. I can't name a typical view on the left that isn't treated as dogma. I think the fundamental flaw with the left is this idea that we deserve more. You can see how successive generations raised with the mindset will eventually turn into to what the left is becoming today. Narcissistic children who think any grievance they have deserves attention, and if it's not addressed, then someone's to blame. Nobody deserves shit, except to be left alone and to be treated fairly.

I happen to think that we deserve life, education and justice. Fortunately, my constitution agrees with me. If that makes me narcissist, that is alright by me. It's actually America that seems so humiliated to me.. You need to pay so much for basics.

>We can reproduce with each other - therefore our genome isn't all that different.

So according to you, the scientific reason that all humans are equal is that they can reproduce with each other? This is a picture of a liger - a crossbreed between a lion and a tiger. These two cat species are separated by millions of years, yet are able to crossbreed.

> You could do IQ tests, but they would be pretty much useless given the class difference.

That's an unfounded assertion. You can measure cognitive abilities just as easily as you can average out which of two groups of homo sapiens is faster then a foot race. Are you claiming that any race is as fleet of foot as, say, Kenyans?

> Since you have so much interference, you cannot use scientific method to do this - you'll never, ever, ever get a clear sample

???

> What you could do is gene analysis - that could prove beyond reasonable doubt that any two races are equal.

But gene analysis has been done, and it proves anything but. Did you really think say, Japanese people and Aboriginal Australians are equivalent in capacity?

I think a large portion boils down to a central dogmatic difference between the left and right, and that's the answer to the question:

What is more important, for everyone to be free or for everyone to be equal, and what balance do you seek to strike between the two?

To keep everyone equal, you have to do it using some form of coercion (taxes and threats of jail time). To keep everyone free will always result in social and economic stratification.

So, that begs the question, where do you strike the balance?

Personally, I'm about 80/20 split on the freedom/equality.

Would you agree that the behavior of modern progressives is antithetical to the values of traditional/classical liberalism?

Alright.. Ligers are sterile, Obama is not.

IQ tests say more about whether you are in middle class, working class or high class. Read about separated twins IQ tests, orphans IQ tests etc.

That is the interference I was talking about.

Physical characteristics mean very little when you consider whether someone is human or not.

I can chip in on this one
>To keep everyone equal, you have to do it using some form of coercion (taxes and threats of jail time).
this is depressingly so in my cunt which is among the top ones regarding "equality" charts
good news is that there are always some cunning and capable individuals able to circumvent the state terror, usually at the expense of everyone else
bad news it that is breeds a deeply-rooted pathology of envy and a great push towards mediocrity among the population
even worse news is that is feeds the black economy like you wouldn't believe thus making it that much more difficult for law-abiding citizens tax-wise
>To keep everyone free will always result in social and economic stratification.
because it's natural and it should be so; the more input one puts in, the more output one enjoys

Except commies actually do exist and push their agenda every day

Nazis don't actually exist

That is a pretty great argument. If our politics worked like that, maybe we would move somewhere.. Sadly, there is no progressive party, Dems are pretty much right wingers at this point and Republicans went from freedom to a total authoritarian state (check political quizzes, there is no libertarianism on either side, nor liberalism, just less right wing policies..)

You mean like Chomsky?

>I can't name a typical view on the left that isn't treated as dogma
Palestine is one such issue, at least in Europe where the debate is split. I don't know if the memes are true and everyone loves Israel more than their own country in America, but here the left is staunchly pro-Palestine while only the right is leaning pro-Israel.

>Read about separated twins IQ tests, orphans IQ tests etc.

First result utterly contradictions your assertion.

> Physical characteristics mean very little when you consider whether someone is human or not.

It's simply denial to assert that physical characteristics are hereditary and intellectual characteristics are not.

Liberalism's belief in fundamental human equality is based in 18th century Christian Enlightenment philosophy and has no basis in hard scientific fact.

I pretty much agree on this, although I think there should be some bare subsistence floor level, because of the pragmatism of starvation and desperation causing increased rates of crime.

I'm very surprised to hear this. At least in our country, it's the Dems who've gone off the rails into borderline communist territories. They're still authoritarian, but of the socialist leftist side of things. Demonizing the successful, trying to rally the 99% against the 1%. That old chestnut.

For us, the Republicans are basically where they've always stood, although they've been somewhat aloof to the adoption of technology and the implications of it.

My personal views basically amount to:

-Basic level of subsistence for everyone. Not comfort, but enough to survive.
-Minimal taxes to pay for public works/defense (specifically, not to meddle in other countries).
-Minimal government interference in people's personal lives.
-Harsh punishments for people who attempt to interfere with other people's lives (for those who feel squeamish about shooting someone).

I agree with life and justice. But you realize why the bill of Rights is framed the way it is, right? It assumes we are born with all of these rights and the government can't take them away because the government can't grant them. You have the right to educate yourself all you like, but to be provided an education requires the labor of someone else. How can I have the right to your labor? Of course education is important, and of course quality healthcare is important, but they can't be rights.

This is where I'm saying the left gets it wrong. It has ingrained this idea that "I" deserve this. What started out as safety nets and good will have regressed into grievance.

Quoting wikipedia:
"The 1996 Task Force investigation on Intelligence sponsored by the American Psychological Association concluded that there are significant variations in IQ across races.[8] The problem of determining the causes underlying this variation relates to the question of the contributions of "nature and nurture" to IQ. Psychologists such as Alan S. Kaufman[134] and Nathan Brody[135] and statisticians such as Bernie Devlin[136] argue that there are insufficient data to conclude that this is because of genetic influences. A review article published in 2012 by leading scholars on human intelligence concluded, after reviewing the prior research literature, that group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Read on enviromental factors

Identical twins—Reared apart .76
From the same fucking article on wikipedia.
Fortunately for all of us, I think that a webpage that has roughly the same number of errors per page as a standart encyclopedia is better than daily news article.

I'm not american, the constitution I was talking about was the Czech one. Sorry to confuse you.

>MARXISTS WILL BE THE FIRST TO HANG ON THE DAY OF THE ROPE

Low IQ is the reason why you're in the lower class, not the other way around.

The issue is then eugenics. How do you stop people from over-breeding, you need to institute population control. And then you have to choose who is entitled to having children.

Both Republicans and Democrats in your country are for massive spending on military - that's hardly a controversial opinion.

I think that America is pretty right wing overall.. Your left party is pretty much my right party etc.

When I was talking about weak Dems, I was talking about yours, not mine, sorry.

Also, I think that America is too big and too diverse for one goverment to satisfy all the different states.. This is where I agree with Republicans. I mean, if California and Texas want to have totally different laws, I think they maybe should? It would give both right and left some rest, while keeping the USA intact. What do you think?

I'd argue freedom will act as its own eugenics. No warning signs on hot coffee. Drug ODs galore. Gun/Explosives accidents. You'll cull the stupid by letting them be stupid.

My response:
Sorry, can't Sup Forums

Fortunately for all of us, you don't need to. That theory has been disproven a long time ago:

youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

Yes and no. There's a question of how it's spent and other various questions of social experimentation in the military (do we fund gender reassignment surgery for soldiers, for instance).

I agree with you on the differences between the states. That's largely why our system is set up with a separation of powers. Most issues wind up being local, and that's where the power to address them should reside.

The problem on a federal scale is if some localities end up becoming incredibly population dense, it's very easy to see how that would be to the detriment of all the other localities (hence our electoral college). Pic related.

Unfortunately for us, there is a large false dichotomy pushed by our left. A disingenuous idea that because it's not being guaranteed by the federal government, that the local government can not choose to provide benefits/protections beyond what the federal government provides so long as they don't run counter to them.

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

You should read what you link:

> Although IQ differences between individuals are shown to have a large hereditary component, it does not follow that mean group-level disparities (between-group differences) in IQ necessarily have a genetic basis.

So it acknowledges that intellecttual characteristics are largely hereditary and there are measurable differences between ethhnic groups, but:

> "Suppose two handfuls are taken from a sack containing a genetically diverse variety of corn, and each grown under carefully controlled and standardized conditions, except that one batch is lacking in certain nutrients that are supplied to the other. After several weeks, the plants are measured. There is variability of growth within each batch, due to the genetic variability of the corn. Given that the growing conditions are closely controlled, nearly all the variation in the height of the plants within a batch will be due to differences in their genes"

This is just PC sophistry: unless you want to argue that a Chinese man liviing off a dollar a day is receiving more nurturing food and environment then a first world American slave descendent.