Started By
Message
re: Dr. Frances Cress Wesling - Secret Mind Behind Liberal Democratic Agenda
Posted on 8/6/15 at 12:23 pm to Upperaltiger06
Posted on 8/6/15 at 12:23 pm to Upperaltiger06
''Shockley argued that a higher rate of reproduction among the less intelligent was having a dysgenic effect, and that a drop in average intelligence would ultimately lead to a decline in civilization. Shockley's published writings and lectures to scientific organizations on this topic were partly based on the writings of psychologist Cyril Burt and were funded by the Pioneer Fund. Shockley also proposed that individuals with IQs below 100 be paid to undergo voluntary sterilization.''
Alright, I'm on board with Shockley.
P.S., thanks for the link to that debate, it was very interesting.
I wonder why we don't have debates like this anymore?
Alright, I'm on board with Shockley.
P.S., thanks for the link to that debate, it was very interesting.
I wonder why we don't have debates like this anymore?
This post was edited on 8/6/15 at 12:34 pm
1
Posted on 8/6/15 at 12:42 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
I first saw it around 2007. It was taken offline for a couple/few years, but has since been reposted. It's rare to see a debate so unbalance. Like a verbal train wreck. Her grasp of heredity and genetics is very poor...and she's an MD.
Posted on 8/6/15 at 12:46 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:
I first saw it around 2007. It was taken offline for a couple/few years, but has since been reposted. It's rare to see a debate so unbalance. Like a verbal train wreck. Her grasp of heredity and genetics is very poor...and she's an MD.
Scientists have no place in debates because people often just ignore what they're saying by and large. They're too objective to understand being soft and nurturing in their debate style, and end up getting drowned in redundant, pointless and irrelevant questions away from their thesis.
Posted on 8/6/15 at 1:03 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Yea....that's what we need. Less objectivity in debates.
I had no problem figuring out what was going on in this one.
I had no problem figuring out what was going on in this one.
Posted on 8/6/15 at 1:13 pm to Upperaltiger06
quote:
Yea....that's what we need. Less objectivity in debates.
I had no problem figuring out what was going on in this one.
I would love it to be completely objective with both sides understanding the science behind it (just watch any Evolution debate), but those don't win debates these days.
It was very easy to see a biased moderator (although I don't know if this was a formal debate) asking terrible questions with an opponent who was woefully unaware of what was being presented.
He brought graphs, charts and intellect -- they brought talking points and tried to poison the well very early. I've seen countless debates, and the only ones who win usually appeal to the crowd. Scientists never seem to appeal to the crowd, which in an intellectually honest universe it wouldn't be necessary but it's textbook: Avoid the argument, speak only of misrepresenting your opponent.
Works like a charm most of the time.
Posted on 8/6/15 at 10:32 pm to mizzoukills
you should also post white aryan theory to counter balance the frickedupness of this cress wesling bull shite here. Aryan race theory was taught in major colleges like Harvard in the early 1900's. Folks like Teddy Roosevelt and others thought that manifest destiny and the white mans right to dominate other peoples of color was Gods will.
i consider both to be crap and bad science.
i consider both to be crap and bad science.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News