Nurture extremists are extremists on behalf of the nurture position because it's the only position that humans (they) have the capacity to influence other than behaving in eugenicist practices (which is basically Darwinian). The funny thing is that observing ppls behavior, they tend to select for eugenicist like mating habits but conceal it in euphemistic labyrinths as to not trigger a social cost for doing so. The luxury of liberal dialectics is that this labyrinth becomes discourse best practices in order to avoid putting a target on one's back for being too overtly selfish among peers whose social gospel is to appear/present oneself as unselfish.
Don't ask why I bother, but on my Facebook I posted this quick plug for this fine column:
Lots of interesting, smart and unnecessarily controversial stuff about nature, nurture, race, IQ, murder rates and NFL cornerbacks from the very smart Steve Sailer.
The idiot machines at Facebook decided:
"We removed your post
Why this happened
It looks like you tried to get likes, follows, shares or video views in a misleading way."
Facebook further wrote:
This goes against our Community Standards on spam.
Then if you want to read a lot of crap about what spam is, you can go to a link.
I'll be nice and say no humans were involved in this decision, but one of Mark Z's people set this stupid policy up in the first place.
One should also mention to the writer the legacy athletes in professional sports. From Christian McCaffery in pro football to Emmitt Smith IV in college football, the mix of nature and nurture is obvious.
Also, a good analogy to explain statistics is to say that just because males are taller, on average, than females does not mean that every male is taller than every female.
Explaining by analogy is fine. Arguing by analogy isn't, because your opponent will always argue about the aptness/confusion in the analogy rather than what you're trying to explain.
E.g. Jesus would explain his teachers to the crowds/Disciples using parables, similes, and metaphors, because they were open to listening to the explanation and wanted to learn. In contrast, when the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadduccees came arguing, he dropped all metaphoric language and went right after them directly, because he knew they didn't come to understand but to trap him.
This guy wasn't seeking to have Steve's argument explained to him, he wanted to argue it down. No analogy would have sufficed because the reporter was actively trying to not understand or credit Steve's argument.
Steve Jobs's widow deploying her smear forces against you by dangling the "you can post the full interview" promise when they won't link to your articles/websites carrying it. Thus assuring that their readers will never read the full interview.
Also, did I mention that Steve Jobs's widow owns The Atlantic and is bff with underage sex trafficker Ghislane "how am I still alive" Maxwell? Or that the Widow Jobs employs Jeffrey Goldberg as the editor The Atlantic, and he is a war mongering war criminal and traitor to this nation?
Such underhanded behavior from such people? Perish the thought! (/sarcasm)
If progressives truly believed nature is irrelevant, then they need to explain statements made by early progressives (e.g. Margaret Sanger) that abortion is necessary to cull the number of so-called “inferior” classes and races who with high fertility rates. Sanger is celebrated to this day.
Nurture extremists are extremists on behalf of the nurture position because it's the only position that humans (they) have the capacity to influence other than behaving in eugenicist practices (which is basically Darwinian). The funny thing is that observing ppls behavior, they tend to select for eugenicist like mating habits but conceal it in euphemistic labyrinths as to not trigger a social cost for doing so. The luxury of liberal dialectics is that this labyrinth becomes discourse best practices in order to avoid putting a target on one's back for being too overtly selfish among peers whose social gospel is to appear/present oneself as unselfish.
It’s disheartening to see so much ego involved motivation to ignore reality when lives are at stake.
great 🙃🙃🙃🤗🤗🤗😘😘😘😍😍😍🥰🥰🥰
Don't ask why I bother, but on my Facebook I posted this quick plug for this fine column:
Lots of interesting, smart and unnecessarily controversial stuff about nature, nurture, race, IQ, murder rates and NFL cornerbacks from the very smart Steve Sailer.
The idiot machines at Facebook decided:
"We removed your post
Why this happened
It looks like you tried to get likes, follows, shares or video views in a misleading way."
Facebook further wrote:
This goes against our Community Standards on spam.
Then if you want to read a lot of crap about what spam is, you can go to a link.
I'll be nice and say no humans were involved in this decision, but one of Mark Z's people set this stupid policy up in the first place.
Steve,
One should also mention to the writer the legacy athletes in professional sports. From Christian McCaffery in pro football to Emmitt Smith IV in college football, the mix of nature and nurture is obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._Smith_(American_football)
Also, a good analogy to explain statistics is to say that just because males are taller, on average, than females does not mean that every male is taller than every female.
Explaining by analogy is fine. Arguing by analogy isn't, because your opponent will always argue about the aptness/confusion in the analogy rather than what you're trying to explain.
E.g. Jesus would explain his teachers to the crowds/Disciples using parables, similes, and metaphors, because they were open to listening to the explanation and wanted to learn. In contrast, when the Pharisees, scribes, and Sadduccees came arguing, he dropped all metaphoric language and went right after them directly, because he knew they didn't come to understand but to trap him.
This guy wasn't seeking to have Steve's argument explained to him, he wanted to argue it down. No analogy would have sufficed because the reporter was actively trying to not understand or credit Steve's argument.
Weaponized, deliberate obtuseness.
What would America be like if more people read and understood Sailer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG3uea-Hvy4
Steve Jobs's widow deploying her smear forces against you by dangling the "you can post the full interview" promise when they won't link to your articles/websites carrying it. Thus assuring that their readers will never read the full interview.
Also, did I mention that Steve Jobs's widow owns The Atlantic and is bff with underage sex trafficker Ghislane "how am I still alive" Maxwell? Or that the Widow Jobs employs Jeffrey Goldberg as the editor The Atlantic, and he is a war mongering war criminal and traitor to this nation?
Such underhanded behavior from such people? Perish the thought! (/sarcasm)
If progressives truly believed nature is irrelevant, then they need to explain statements made by early progressives (e.g. Margaret Sanger) that abortion is necessary to cull the number of so-called “inferior” classes and races who with high fertility rates. Sanger is celebrated to this day.
No progressive is arguing that Down's syndrome is due to nurture.