[kraychik]

Zyx wrote:

I already said that intelligence is invariable.

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like this? How can you possibly say that intelligence in invariable? This is jaw-dropping in its ridiculousness. Just because intelligence is a difficult thing to quantify with perfection doesn't give you free reign to make ridiculous statements such as this, while preparing your defense against opposition to your absurd position with critiques of conventional methods of evaluating intelligence. I just *know* you're trying to derail this thread into a discussion over the validity/accuracy of conventional methods of assessing intelligence, i.e. IQ tests. The reality of the shortcomings of IQ testing and other methods of measuring intelligence doesn't magically turn into intelligence being equal between all persons. Again, this is an astonishingly stupid statement.

Historically, I am correct (First paragraph.)

Wow, you've linked us to a paper discussing how IQ/intelligence testing has been used (in some instances) as a discriminatory tool. I've already acknowledged this reality. It doesn't prove your position that IQ/intelligence testing is absolutely a tool of discrimination with your quasi-philosophical statements (which were nonsensical until you elaborated on them after I called you out on their frivolity). Tools for measuring intelligence, although not perfect and abused in the past as tools of discrimination, are not inherently immoral or useless. Again, congratulations on linking us to a report that nobody's going to read for you to "win" this argument.

Were Morality and intelligence linked, then Morality would be invariable.

You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say intelligence is constant. On the other hand, your own definition of intelligence hinges on rationality: is rationality also a constant? Obviously it isn't, and obviously intelligence isn't uniform among all persons, either. Further, is morality a constant? Following your line of reasoning, by claiming that morality hinges on intelligence (a position you claim to be a law of nature in order to support your position that intelligence testing is utilized exclusively to discriminate against certain groups, like blacks), isn't morality by extension also invariable? Nothing you're saying makes any sense. Seriously, my intelligence drops every time I engage you in conversation, all you do is speak mumbo jumbo in a strange attempt to appear intelligent through vague hocus pocus statements.

[humanrights]

An intelligent person can seem the idiot when drunk. He can't even articulate or remember well.
An intelligent person can seem the idiot when mad.

The worst is the class clown that keeps others from increasing their knowledge.

A not smart person that likes to listen and learn is smarter than most.

[Zyx]

I just *know* you're trying to derail this thread into a discussion over the validity/accuracy of conventional methods of assessing intelligence, i.e. IQ tests.

Not at all. I do not care for IQ tests.

How can you possibly say that intelligence in invariable?

There are few conditions, but its generally constant.

How can you say that intelligence considerably varies?

If we have opposing conclusions, then it's your obligation, if you'd like to dispute my own, to propose counter evidence and so forth.

I've already acknowledged this reality.

No. You admitted ignorance. You should thank me for the elucidation.

Obviously it isn't, and obviously intelligence isn't uniform among all persons, either.

What an excellent argument.

You're contradicting yourself.

If I were to 'contradict myself' I'd at least need to be lead into a contradiction. The very idea that I'd willingly contradict myself is a sign of your reading skills, not my inconsistencies.

Just dispute this statement or move on:

Intelligence, with respect to our range of experiences, is invariable.