What I can't stand is an Internet forum and its rules of conduct acting as a petri dish for a passive-aggressive argument style--a style that, I suppose, falls under the umbrella definition of 'trolling.' Mustering an imperfect argument and then finishing it up with what postures as a logical coup de grace, but really is just a chance to call your opponent's stance (or just straight-up your opponent) hypocritical, limited, small-scope, etc. is so enshrined as a stock feature of etiquette that people seem to then extract the substance from such pusillanimous comments and assume the rest was just acceptable style. It's not only a massive drain on substantive debate, it's a deep offense to the more bitchin brands of gods. Whose table would you rather fit in at--Wormtongue's or Hrothgar's? I agree about vulgarity and incivility, but it's a prim and deluded scene that only notices such things when they're dressed in bar clothes.
Meanwhile, Shade, I'd like to think you're not attributing anger about race equality offenses to my argument. I mean, I'm done and I'm likely not going to disabuse you of the mistaken impression if that's what you saw, but still.
I do think the canine analogy is not apt; see earlier bit on breeds. Iffy scales of intelligence and occasional studies designed to describe a pack mammal based on how well they integrate with humans and obey their commands are hardly comparable to the volume of info we have about humanity. And breeds are bred. Microselection. Races? Theyre largely nothing. More genetic differentiation between Serbs and Englishmen than between the Yoruba and Southern American Scots. To begin to identify substantial differences in various mental capacities like you're suggesting would be hands-down grounds to split off different subspecies. You'd need quite a lot of natural breeding selection to get that going, to boot.
As we learn more about the brain? Sure. Possible. Any evidence so far? No.
