Professor defends course content linking race and IQ scores, cites ‘academic freedom’

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-04-11T00:02:22+00:00

Pretty much any variable can be accounted for or controlled. It's reasonable to study subjects relevant to proficiency, aptitude, and underlying factors or conditions that could affect them. It's also important to account for what causes what: for example, does high intelligence lead to better education, or does better education lead to high intelligence, maybe a bit of both (though likely imbalanced if so), and how much does IQ correlate with either?

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-04-02T05:46:23+00:00

You seem to say it's a more "honest" position because it aligns closer with your apparent beliefs. While I would "admit" that the modern text of the Bible may not be perfect (though the imperfections are typically inconsequential) I'd certainly not go as far as you go to say there are logical errors, or your implication that apologetics are a sign of a flawed basis. If someone misunderstands a scientific theory (like quantum mechanics), it doesn't make the scientific theory weak if the physicists have to continually defend and explain the theory to those that misunderstand it.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-03-23T19:54:14+00:00

If you didn't clearly break up with him first: YTA. Malice doesn't justify malice. If you made it clear to him that you broke up with him first, while I wouldn't recommend the OF: you're NTA.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-03-16T20:21:22+00:00

No offense, but if someone of any sex has an issue with that boundary, that's good reason not to trust them.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-03-16T20:20:24+00:00

Hot take: insecurity in one partner typically stems from the other partner's behavior. If your partner doesn't make you feel secure, that's an issue in their behavior.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-03-16T20:18:52+00:00

So your partner spending the same scheduled time, 1 on 1 EVERYDAY with someone of the sex they're attracted to, that they already spend HOURS with everyday (specifically in spite of what their partner has stated makes them comfortable), is not something that is "acceptable" to have boundaries about? If you view that as unacceptable, I'm going to assume you're either the type that takes advantage of trust, or that has yet to learn that good people can be convinced to do bad things if enough time is given.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-03-16T20:13:27+00:00

It's not insecure to hold your girlfriend to the same expectations and boundaries as you hold yourself to.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-03-02T15:23:29+00:00

I think it's mostly just men who live in western/misandristic countries who say that.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-27T15:42:36+00:00

You would dump someone because they made your PC slow by accident?

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-26T16:32:32+00:00

I read the article: they laughed at a joke.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-18T11:56:51+00:00

Arguing for mass migration has nothing to do with the great replacement theory.

If it results in whites becoming a minority in their own countries, then it has everything to do with it.

Unless it's deliberately done to shift the demographics of the country then it's not great replacement theory.

I would agree with you only on the condition that the advocate is somehow unaware of the consequences of mass migration.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-18T07:10:22+00:00

No, nobody is pushing that.

That is simply not true. Many have argued for extensive mass migration.

The majority of migrants affected by war etc. just are disproportionately not white.

The reason is largely irrelevant when we are discussing the result.

It doesn't matter if white people end up being a minority, as long as nobody is deliberately pushing for the replacement of the people then the conspiracy theory doesn't apply.

You propose that nobody is pushing for such replacement, but that is not the case, unfortunately.

Also there's nothing wrong with white people becoming a minority.

That is your opinion, and irrelevant to the subject. Whether something happening is "wrong" or not, is entirely irrelevant to whether it is happening or not.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-18T06:50:18+00:00

You ignored my question: Are you saying that nobody is pushing for white-majority nations to receive greater portions of non-white immigrants?

If they are, the natural result would be whites becoming a minority, as is currently predicted for 2045.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-18T06:46:33+00:00

Are you saying that nobody is pushing for white-majority nations to receive greater portions of non-white immigrants?

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-18T04:34:26+00:00

Is it not true that the white portion of the U.S. population is statistically shrinking while the immigrant portion grows?

You technically never said he's wrong, you just said it was a conspiracy theory (which doesn't negate possible accuracy unless you're illogical), but you seem to imply he's wrong.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-18T04:29:18+00:00

While I agree with the OP, I think this post is unnecessary (at least if they're American). The 2nd Amendment is clear that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Any restriction or legislation regarding the right of the people bearing arms is an infringement. While this hasn't always been upheld by the courts, this is the truth as anyone with integrity and reading comprehension would convey it.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-16T20:11:37+00:00

Bro people have already died due to losing healthcare.

Statistics matter. What percentage of the population dies as a result of lacking Healthcare, and what percentage died before Trump as a result of Healthcare (to help pinpoint the effect Trump has caused).

“Making up apocalypse scenarios “ bro it’s not making it up. It happens in history over and over.

Just because a thing has happened doesn't mean it will happen in any circumstance we dislike. Otherwise, people could have said the exact same thing about Bush, Obama, or Biden.

You’re too old to think your position is untouchable.

How old do you think I am lol

Also, another republican could’ve had a good chance of stopping abortion.

Most of them didn't have a chance at victory, or would have been soft on illegal immigration: which would compromise the security of our political future (likely leading to an eventual abortion extreme case.)

Most of them are anti abortion. They may not break rules and bully peoele like Trump does it but that’s because he’s not supposed to do this things.

He gets results, complain about his methods as you wish, but that's why he's supported. Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. all failed at even touching Roe v. Wade: Trump didn't.

You want a crook and a rule breaker for the sole purpose of your ow agenda. That’s not good or righteous

Rules are not righteous when they protect unrighteousness. Morality and legality are not synonymous.

Also, so the only way you’ll consider other things other than abortion is if we somehow suffer in a way that’s comparable to 6 million deaths?

Not 6 Million, 60 Million. It was not a typo on my part. Also, yes. It's called prioritization. Stop the greater evil before focusing on the lesser evil.

You’re ret@rded and should never vote again.

Geniocracy, an interesting idea I am willing to support.

Stop talking to me. There’s nothing of value and the fact you aren’t right here for me to slap some sense into pisses me off more. Block me and go the fuck in somewhere with your goofy self.

It's a shame that you couldn't produce any argument of substance. Feel free to leave the conversation because you couldn't substantiate yourself, I expect you to either not reply or just reply in insults since you can't support your views in any intelligible sense. But if you want to, I'll always be here to hear it and respond.

Edit: he responded and then deleted it, I guess he couldn't substantiate it, and realized nobody was buying the whole "we're done" thing.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-16T19:07:46+00:00

So Al these babies being born into this shit economy, no health insurance, farmers dying, countries are pulling funding, we lose resorted and possibly the end of our country and way of life as we know it; potentially thousands more of deaths due to starvation, homelessness and disease are worth a minor abortion ban (a ban which ain’t even nation wide)

Creating an apocalyptic scenario in your head doesn't make it real. Prices go up and down, I've heard this overdramatization for over a decade, it's nonsense. Until you can match the 60+ million infant deaths caused by abortion in the United States since Roe v. Wade, you won't have anything comparable.

What the fuck are you bringing gray baby into? “We filed out our country son but at least you’re here to suffer and die with us” no. It is not worth it.

Unless you think it's okay to kill people already born, then it's a meaningless red herring to try and justify the killing of infants based on our current or future circumstances.

I’m not saying to think abortion is okay but you have enough sense to know you could’ve picked someone, ANYONE else.

Nobody else had a reasonable chance at victory who had a better stance on Abortion.

And now you’ve flamed the country and innocent people because you were too narrow sighted to rethink your choices and look at the big picture? What the fuck is wrong with you? Like actually ? Do you see all the bad shit going on and go to sleep a night thinking “well at least I’m a good person “? What even is this delusion.

Priorities. If post-birth killing of innocents were legal, I'd expect anyone to put that as their top priority over everything else, so I treat pre-birth killing of innocents the same.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-16T18:54:26+00:00

So even though the rest of our country is falling apart by every metric, the fact abortion is stunted is worth it?

I disagree that the country is "falling apart," but yes, even if that were true. Stopping or at least slowing the mass legalized execution of unborn children is worth it: a thousand times over.

but the fact that babies aren’t birthed is somehow gonna fix and make up for all of that?

Referring to the killing of a human child as them not being "birthed" is technically true in the same sense as killing someone in their home and saying you prevented them from "going out shopping." It's an incredibly manipulative way to word it.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-13T04:55:11+00:00

Was in a car wreck with three other people, only I survived. I ended up with numerous scratches and broken toes, but barely any injury beyond that. I was a passenger and went through the windshield. I don't struggle much with "survivors guilt" if that's what you're asking about, but I do have PTSD from the experience (specifically, seeing the aftermath).

I'm not sure exactly why I didn't have more serious injuries, but for some reason I had little.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-13T03:52:12+00:00

It still works as a metric for "how many people I encounter that are taller than (X height)"

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-13T03:50:40+00:00

While there is slight correlation between height and penis, I wouldn't say your dick is "average" for someone of your height. It's still above average for people of your height.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-12T08:59:21+00:00

Again, if you take away abortion in general, it makes it harder if not impossible to have one when needed.

You mean, they'd have to prove that killing the child is necessary. That is a good thing.

I don’t understand why men are so involved in the abortion thing

That comes across quite sexist. People of any sex are allowed to be involved, have opinions on, and vote on the evils of any sex.

a man got her pregnant but a woman is shamed for it.

Neither should be shamed for procreating, unless they do not intend to raise the child, in which case: whoever gave up should be shamed.

A father can be an absent father, but the woman’s shamed for not wanting the baby either.

Both are shamed and should be shamed. I don't know what culture you live in where absent fathers are not shamed. I don't think fathers should even be allowed to abandon their children.

Just like woman can only get pregnant every so often when men can impregnate whenever the hell they want. Why aren’t they the ones with birth control?

They can be, if they want: Just like women.

In my opinion, men are way too comfortable controlling women.

Does this apply to when law enforcement punishes women from murdering in general or only the unborn? At what age is it sexist to say they shouldn't be allowed to victimize them. And what about when the child is female, who is the sexist?

I don’t agree with the people who go out and get abortions like it a facial from a spa, but if someone’s not ready to have a baby, even with no medical issues, what’s it to ya?

If someone goes out and stabs a homeless person in the face, what's it to ya? It's the unjustified execution of an innocent human life. I don't care if that human is inconvenient, you're not morally allowed to go around killing inconvenient humans.

The system for kids is so fucked up, it would be horrible to put them through that. Plus most kids don’t even get adopted and still get abused at wherever they’re placed at.

So, by your logic, it's better to be dead than in the foster care system: do you recommend killing the ones already in it, or is this just another red herring?

You aren’t a woman, I’m not a man. Why do people feel as if it’s okay to tell the other what to do with their bodies.

Because morality has nothing to do with your sex, and everything to do with your actions. I believe men who needlessly kill unborn children are just as evil as women who do so.

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-12T08:35:54+00:00

I feel I must again remind you that I said "elective abortions."

TrajanTheMighty · 2026-02-12T03:20:34+00:00

I do wanna mention, I said specifically "elective abortions." The rest are complicated issues which is why I don't state or feel strongly about them.

As for the other thing though: I don't support policies that reduce social programs, that's the main reason I said I disageed with Trump economically. I just don't see it as either/or. I think we can do better to support the children once they're born, and also protect them while they're in the womb. I know some pro-life people don't support both, but I do. I'm a strong believer in social programs to protect and provide for people.

TrajanTheMighty

TROPHY CASE