ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
It might be a good idea to replace "biology" with "genetic variability", both times.
In other words:
Liberals believe in science, but aren't racists.
Conservatives are racists, but believe God made them that way (the races and themselves).
talboito: "Conservatives are racists"
Where did that come from? How do you get "Conservatives are racists" from "Conservatives: Believe in biology, but not evolution?"
I *think* he means "racist = believer in significant race-based ability/behaviour differences".
Me, I'd stick with "racist = promulgator of race-based ability/behaviour differences", although that might be a bit unfair to those who *truly* believe that they aren't responsible for the consequences of what they say.
Even if our species did not have the population clusters that it does (for example, if in the future there is basically random mating for a long time), human-biodiversity would still be a fact of life ignored at our peril. Male vs female differences would also be far more difficult to eliminate.
Tom - brevity is the soul of wit.
Bryan - glad someone appreciated the quip