anchoress posted:

Watson has repeatedly supported genetic screening and genetic engineering in public lectures and interviews, arguing that stupidity is a disease and the "really stupid" bottom 10% of people should be cured. He has also suggested that beauty could be genetically engineered, saying in 2003, "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

he's right. about everything

Helical Nightmares posted:

First of all kill yourself.

Secondly when Rosalind was working on the structure of the A form DNA (remember the dehydrated form) she rejected her colleague's opinion (Wilkins I believe) that DNA was helical. Her colleague came to that conclusion from studying the B (hydrated) form of DNA from only a scant bit of data. This was a brilliant leap of insight. Rosalind chose to work on/may have been pressured into working on A form DNA because she had much more data on the A vs the B form thus it seemed more promising.

Watson and Crick looked at the B form DNA data and realized that if DNA was helical inside the cell, a great deal of previous data makes sense. Remember a helical structure is periodic: it suggests a repeating shape subunit. Combine that with the knowledge of Chargaff's rules of complementarity and Avery's discovery of semi conservative replication and Watson and Crick were able to put together the structure of the physiologically relevant form of DNA. Franklin didn't see the whole picture.

Also you jackass, read the original paper by Watson and Crick. It is only three pages.

deadking posted:

wow thats a lot of science words

my reply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxQq1wB7A28

Slurin posted:

blah blah blah the entire progressive movement in america was founded by racists. WWI was won by Wilson who funded KKK films from the white house, and re-segregated the military. He's still extolled as one of the best presidents in america. Margret Sanger was a huge racist and founded planned parenthood due to her devotion for eugenics. she also supported the banning of pesticides that slightly damaged the environment yet made it possible for large amounts of people to get fed in terrible farming conditions, and thus starved swaths of people in poor countries. So basically people who made major contributions to society and were raised before the 50-60's were huge racists but still made decent advances in society.

Torka posted:

Darkman Fanpage posted:

I am a coward who makes grandiose claims and then runs away when asked for evidence. Please ignore everything I have to say.

Larry Parrish posted:

Basically every liberal during the 20's to 40's was down with eugenics and a lot of Americans supported the Nazis before the war broke out. It's not like it's the only embarrassing thing the country has ever done.

Biggie Shorty posted:

Nigga gently caress yo feelings

Kleen_TheRowdyDog posted:

i used to be all for eugenics before i realized that i probably wouldn't have made the cut.

but there has to be some happy medium. like maybe giving poor inner city women money incentives not to have children. ie, 10K to get your tubes tied if you make below 5k/year or something.

hemale in pain posted:

i'm surprised a russian would support a racist

RonMexicosPitbull posted:

"Hi I dont know jackshit about any of the people or science involved but I read on tumblr there was a woman involved in genetics at some point so its super comfortable for me to say it was all stolen from her by the evil men"

LordArgh posted:

i don't think there's any credible scientific data that shows that black people are less intelligent

Kleen_TheRowdyDog posted:

i used to be all for eugenics before i realized that i probably wouldn't have made the cut.

but there has to be some happy medium. like maybe giving poor inner city women money incentives not to have children. ie, 10K to get your tubes tied if you make below 5k/year or something.

anchoress posted:

there is, but when you start talking about race and intelligence some people's standards for "credibility" seem to become extremely high

gggiiimmmppp posted:

"Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you're not going to hire them." -- James Watson

LordArgh posted:

i don't think there's any credible scientific data that shows that black people are less intelligent

4outof5 posted:

So how about all those scientific advancements coming out of sub-saharan Africa for thousands of years you guys?

bonvivant posted:

you should post the relevant studies, include all the methodology involved since this line of thought is extremely socially maligned by basically everyone, kind of like how they won't accept climate change data

Minimalist Program posted:

It's dumb for a trained and accomplished research scientist to call entire races less "intelligent" than others without sufficient scientific data to back up that claim. It's sloppy worksmanship and should not be taken seriously.
It's even dumber, however, for people to then get outraged on a moral level (as opposed to concerned on a methodological one) at the scientist's statement, because of a cultural tendency to see the intelligence of the individual human being as a measuring stick for their particular "worth" within postmodern society, which causes them to confuse scientifically unfounded factual statements about IQ for blatantly racist statements about human worth. It is also really dumb that a medal the sized of a beer coaster got sold for 5 million dollars.

Digital Fingers posted:

K, so I guess the real question is what should we- the general public -do now that it's proven to us that blacks are stupid and we are smarties.

Seriously even if those QI tests are right (I'm not going to touch how reliable they are b/c take would a lot of googling) what the gently caress do we gain from acknowledging it? More division between humanity? A better excuse for people to scapegoat societal ills on the bottom members instead of the those who run things from the top?

Resources are getting sparse now a days and more and more countries feel the need to implement some sort of population control. The atmosphere seems ripe for some sort of widespread eugenics program to start up in the next 100 years and having a widespread consensus that X group is inherently better than Y makes Y group the first target of these efforts.

Humans are a bunch of lizard brained shits and if you don't want a loving genocide you have to stick your head in the sand about these things.
If social engineering and eugenics is really important to you go ahead then and try your best to pedigree people, spread the good word, i guess.

A slippery slope nazi argument is usually really dumb to make but its what happened the last time everybody accepted this poo poo as everyday knowledge.

Digital Fingers posted:

K, so I guess the real question is what should we- the general public -do now that it's proven to us that blacks are stupid and we are smarties.

Seriously even if those QI tests are right (I'm not going to touch how reliable they are b/c take would a lot of googling) what the gently caress do we gain from acknowledging it? More division between humanity? A better excuse for people to scapegoat societal ills on the bottom members instead of the those who run things from the top?

Resources are getting sparse now a days and more and more countries feel the need to implement some sort of population control. The atmosphere seems ripe for some sort of widespread eugenics program to start up in the next 100 years and having a widespread consensus that X group is inherently better than Y makes Y group the first target of these efforts.

Humans are a bunch of lizard brained shits and if you don't want a loving genocide you have to stick your head in the sand about these things.
If social engineering and eugenics is really important to you go ahead then and try your best to pedigree people, spread the good word, i guess.

A slippery slope nazi argument is usually really dumb to make but its what happened the last time everybody accepted this poo poo as everyday knowledge.

anchoress posted:

well basically there hasn't been an intelligence test yet designed where whites don't score higher than blacks. you can cry bias all you want, but i don't think it's a coincidence that every time an attempt is made to measure intelligence by race, the same result is found.

iq tests predict future achievement just as well for blacks and whites. if there was a racial bias in iq testing, you would expect blacks to outperform their iq results. but they don't

and you can't explain it away by saying blacks = poor ergo it's actually low SES that makes their iq scores lower because

Above Our Own posted:

what else you got?