Show your data or shut up != shut up. With that massive genetic intellect advantage you have as a white person one would think you'd realize that.
I'm familiar with the Bell Curve, as well as its issues and the way you're distorting it. I'm also aware that name dropping smart people (Watson and Crick, Watson and Crick, Watson and Crick!!!!!!) is an argument from authority fallacy (especially ironic as I know you disagree with some of the other things they believe), and that when a discussion gets to the “I’m so obviously right that the only possible reason to disagree with me is either ignorance of the subject or moral cowardice” then it’s not really a discussion anymore.
I think I’m gonna put “arguing that black folk aren’t innately stupid with rooster” into the “arguing cops shouldn’t beat and shoot people for no reason with CSD” and “arguing pretty much anything with De Selby” categories. Which is annoying because I’m sure my decision to not debate will give you a little “I won!” glow of satisfaction, even though it is merely a response to your own arrogantly dismissive attitude and refusal to back up your argument other than argument from authority and claims I am unfamiliar with the material in question vs questioning your interpretation of it. I suppose I’ll just console myself with the thought of your daughter marrying a black man, and picturing you trying to explain how God just made them darkies stupider than the white folk. 
I'm familiar with the Bell Curve, as well as its issues and the way you're distorting it. I'm also aware that name dropping smart people (Watson and Crick, Watson and Crick, Watson and Crick!!!!!!)
If you actually read TBC, rather than ignorant critiques of it, you'd know that I am
not distorting it. Go ahead, try reading it. Lemme give you a hint:
the book is not about race. Matter of fact, almost all the book's cited stats control for race. You'd know that if you had actually read it. It even has a quick & dirty statistics primer for those not familiar with stats, but willing to learn, in an appendix. That alone is worth $3.75.
I brought up Watson for two points:
1. Did not feel like re-telling the entire story of genetics. Look it up.
2. He was pilloried for speaking honestly about the heritable component of general intelligence.
3. If you had been familiar with him and his 2007 denouement, it would be a shorthand way of encapsulating the argument.
Also, not every adverse argument is a fallacy.
Aristotle’s
Rhetoric concentrates on the following
Logos
Pathos
Ethos
All have their place. In Watson's case, using him as an authority is not a fallacy, as it relies on his decades of research in the field (which most certainly produced hard data), the similarity of his exit from the public stage, and not his moral rectitude.
I think I’m gonna put “arguing that black folk aren’t innately stupid with rooster”
Now who is distorting another's writings?
I suppose I’ll just console myself with the thought of your daughter marrying a black man, and picturing you trying to explain how God just made them darkies stupider than the white folk.
Wow, all the ignorance of the left along with stolen cheap grace obtained by chewing off, masticating, and vomiting forth the work of the civil rights movement for your purposes. Toss in a smidge of malevolence, to boot.
I would like to thank you for demonstrating the religious fervor some folk demonstrate on this topic. Your playing the race card is both helpful and convincing in a way that describing such could never be. Also, beyond parody.
