So Are The New Dev's Siding With Darwoth's Racism?

[Feone]

saying there is no genetic difference between race and tendecies toward certain behavior patterns based on racial makeup as a result is laughable and tells me your "biology degree" came from classes taught by people like claeyt.

there are major strides in the pharamceutical industry to tailor drugs specifically to the genes of individual races to make them more effective, if we were "all the same" that would not be possible and hundreds of millions would not be getting dumped into their development.

during the cold war both we and the russians experimented with ethnically targetted biological weapons.



in fact i want another dog, i want to sit on the couch and relax with a movie. so given a dog is a dog and there are no racial differences i think i will go get a malmute to keep me company.

tomorrow when i go run a marathon i will take my rott, again because there is no difference and what not

I think culture and other social influences have a far greater effect than genetics. Especially those present during childhood, as experiences during this time have an enormous effect on the brain.

[TruthTeller]

There is no difference. The areas in-which people develop in, their class in that society, their wealth, and their Governing Body's funding into education, usually dictate how far most are educated. This is cutting off the other portion where self-study resides as it is not always used, and when it is, done in limited portions. If you're interested in IQ and education then look into sociology, philosophy, psychology, neurology, and medical journals on the development of the human brain. Society has a majority of the control on how people think. The rarity of a genetic miss-hap is usually easy caught, and treated, now a-days.

The idea that skin color dictates does nothing. If I am to skin you, detach your genitalia, cut your head off, feet off, and hands off, and thus repeat it on a person of any other, but opposite, color, then we have two things that are the same: Two mutilated, blood dripping, bodies ready for usage in an anatomy lab. Now the important question. When can we begin this live demonstration with you as a volunteer to make this point?

How come there is at least one study showing that south-koreans in caucasian adopting families on average do significantly better in IQ tests than caucasians? Is the difference explained by their genetics or which environmental factors would you attribute the difference to? What if that even if you take consideration to the socio-economic status, the difference in IQ is still substantial?

[Feone]

There is no difference. The areas in-which people develop in, their class in that society, their wealth, and their Governing Body's funding into education, usually dictate how far most are educated. This is cutting off the other portion where self-study resides as it is not always used, and when it is, done in limited portions. If you're interested in IQ and education then look into sociology, philosophy, psychology, neurology, and medical journals on the development of the human brain. Society has a majority of the control on how people think. The rarity of a genetic miss-hap is usually easy caught, and treated, now a-days.

The idea that skin color dictates does nothing. If I am to skin you, detach your genitalia, cut your head off, feet off, and hands off, and thus repeat it on a person of any other, but opposite, color, then we have two things that are the same: Two mutilated, blood dripping, bodies ready for usage in an anatomy lab. Now the important question. When can we begin this live demonstration with you as a volunteer to make this point?

How come there is at least one study showing that south-koreans in caucasian adopting families on average do significantly better in IQ tests than caucasians? Is the difference explained by their genetics or which environmental factors would you attribute the difference to? What if that even if you take consideration to the socio-economic status, the difference in IQ is still substantial?

If there is such a study, please include a source. It is impossible to say anything intelligent about a study when there is no information on the details of it.

[TruthTeller]

Source pl0x

Frydman and Lynn (1989). "The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium". Personality and Individual Differences 10 (12): 1323–1325. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90246-8.

Lynn, Richard (2006) Race Differences in Intelligence

[Feone]

Source pl0x

Frydman and Lynn (1989). "The intelligence of Korean children adopted in Belgium". Personality and Individual Differences 10 (12): 1323–1325. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90246-8.

Lynn, Richard (2006) Race Differences in Intelligence

Locked behind a paywall so I can't get the exact details.
However, from what I can find this study may be offset due to the high percentage of college graduates amongst the parents. This could, in fact, bias the results.

I would not be surprised if there is some genetic difference, however I also think there is a strong correlation between social conditions, culture and intelligence. People are far less likely to study if they don't have the money for it & if they spend their lives in an environment that constantly tells them education is "stupid" or w/e word is used for it currently.
Or, the other way around, if you are constantly pushed to learn & develop your skills then it's much more likely you'll end up well educated etc.

[Lenin]

How come there is at least one study showing that south-koreans in caucasian adopting families on average do significantly better in IQ tests than caucasians? Is the difference explained by their genetics or which environmental factors would you attribute the difference to? What if that even if you take consideration to the socio-economic status, the difference in IQ is still substantial?

I'd need to see the study to have an idea of where it is coming from. You need to understand, that the culture, family, and class effects quite a bit of a person's development. While at the same time a person's willingness to expand their knowledge or ability also comes into question. You'll also want to remember that there are studies for, against, and in the grey, on all topics. I'm not saying that this study is wrong but I can guarantee that there are at least two other that disprove it out there.

Another thing to remember would be that if the child(ren) where at a set age before being adopted then culture settings have already been made. North-East Asia, East Asia, and parts of South-East Asia are well known for having cultures that promote robotic like studding, pushing for obtaining a better education, and a general family/society pushing to be useful to their society. That aspect has some what been running off in Western societies. At the end of the day there are a multitude of elements that dictate more than race or genetics ever could. You'd be surprised by how many people who lacked the ability to memorize simple things pushed themselves past their boundaries and limitations to be put in history books. Adolf Hitler is a great example of that.

Genetics can apply in relation to how a person's brain operates, but at the end of the day it remains the same as we're still learning new things that contradict old things to how we thought it operated. We know as a fact that chemical process do heavily effect it, as well as genetics that hold it back. Can a person be more inclined to remember more genetically? Yes. Do you see it happen through a set family as it would be thought? Surprisingly no. Some people are born with the ability to remember everything they've seen. Yet they pop up randomly throughout the world.

Try not to complain about a book being made when talking about these things. As this is what you get when talking about these things.

EDIT: These questions would be better else where as they are also serving to allow the fallacy of a "legacy" from the thread's creator to go on.

[Kaios]

This is not a thread I will permit to be derailed. If you want to argue game development or morality or whatever this is with John, Kaios, create a thread about it elsewhere. Any further posts here on the subject will be deleted.

Oh shut up, an argument requires more than one party to be arguing. Example, if I state 10 points/opinions in a post, I will get a response to perhaps 10% of them and that 10% being something I didn't really care to hear more about in the first place.

This is the moderation thread and despite where the argument is at presently, at its essence I am and always have been arguing decisions of moderation. If you feel that requires my posts to be deleted in the Moderation Complaints thread, that's up to you.

[JohnCarver]

I for one am not even really sure what we are arguing about?

You seem to think there are circumstances that can exist where a player putting a dunce cap on himself should be allowed to have it removed by dev's despite its intention to be a cursed item requiring effort to remove.

I disagree.

I have no illusion that you will change your mind as you are willfully allowing circumstances related to the event to cloud the fundamentals. I, on the other hand, have no intention of taking anything outside the exact context at hand into consideration.

We are at an impasse. Further argument at this point would do little but support as evidence that perhaps we ourselves should have the cap as well. A few points of clarification:

#1: There is currently one way in-game for the hat to be removed, and at that point he would be free to use it as most would have assumed, and try to get it to land on the head of his enemies.

#2: We intend on implementing more sophisticated mechanics to deal with these items in the future as well.

#3: Claeyt is not the only person who got a hat.

I share this with you only because I think you might find these things relevant to this exact situation. As I mentioned, I do not.

[Kaios]

You seem to think there are circumstances that can exist where a player putting a dunce cap on himself should be allowed to have it removed by dev's despite its intention to be a cursed item requiring effort to remove.

Situations sometimes need to be dealt on a case by case basis, not just by giving a blanket rule and applying it to everyone. There were factors in this scenario not always applicable to a normal situation, such as dev intervention, where as normally a player should have obtained the item by means of a method also implemented in to the game. That's how it should be, not throwing items in willy nilly and allowing players to suffer the consequences. Once again I state, did players not want to move AWAY from the Jorb and Loftar-esque behaviour?

I'm also not sure how you're confused what the whole point of the argument is. Do I have to state it again in bigger font for it to get through that thick skull of yours?

You manipulated a situation to troll a player, the player got mad, you banned the player.

I share this with you only because I think you might find these things relevant to this exact situation. As I mentioned, I do not.

I don't find them relevant, not sure why you think I would. Other players got the hat because they asked and implementing and allowing access to items with features you have yet to implement ways to get rid of also doesn't make much sense from a common sense stand point.

[JohnCarver]

items with features you have yet to implement ways to get rid of

Ah, but now you are not reading what I am telling you, look at #1. It is possible to remove the hat, and upon doing so, very possible to get it back in your inventory and give it to another player and have them now forced to deal with the cursed item.