1) I call it odd because I, 4 years ago, wrote it on a whim without any real thought put into it and did not expect to ever get a reply back. Why? Because the review was written by an unregistered user and someone coming back 6 years later, and 6 months after I wrote the original comment was very unexpected. But that's trivial at this point, I shouldn't have focused so much on it.

2) I know you didn't directly say you blame marijuana use on low IQ. On the other hand, you seem to think that social pathology is overwhelmingly, almost always committed by people of low IQ and thus seem to say that people with low IQ's have very low inhibition and self-control, while people of high IQ (or even average IQ) are for all intents and purposes polar opposites. I don't know why you're making over these semantics so much. The tone and arguments put forth in your review and comments tell me that you believe social pathology, including marijuana use, can be blamed on low IQ. Would saying something like "marijuana users use marijuana because of their lower IQ's" satisfy you?

And I'll stand by calling your belief that marijuana use is overwhelmingly because of low IQ insane. It's really not hard to come across innumerable accomplished, intelligent and creative people who admit to marijuana use, whether past or present. Writers, artists, philosophers etc. etc. etc. admit to marijuana use and wish for it's legalization. One of the most advanced countries in the world, Denmark, has full blown legalization of marijuana and I imagine you'd chalk up Denmark's success purely to IQ.

Your insistence on blaming marijuana use on IQ strikes me as nothing more than a convenient explanation for something you don't like.

3) See above in regards to your indignancy over "blaming it on low IQ." I've also never really come across people, outside of academic works and internet discussions on nature-nurture, that blame pathological behavior on IQ to the extent you do.

4) If you want me to clarify, I was never talking about natural disasters either. There's no need for all of the indignance you focus again on how I didn't specifically say "social problems". And I stand by thinking your remark on how all of the world's social problems are due to IQ is insane.

5) I call it self-parody because I, in my readings in the nature-nurture discourse, have almost never come across someone who so blatantly says the world's problems can be boiled down to IQ differences and virtually nothing else. I see sentiments similar to those all the time, but the gleeful and unabashed commentary you give is the most blatant I have ever seen. It's as if you seem to think human nature isn't much more than a hierarchy of IQ differences, with nearly every virtue and deviance being pinned down on that.

6) See 3.

7) What part of my message are you referring to now?

8) Again, I've seldom gotten the impression of there being millions of people who boil down the world's problems as myopically as you do- or atleast, those who've genuinely considered it. It's easy to chalk up something like the famine in east africa simply to nebulous "cultural" differences, but then there's people of your stripe who say things to the effect of "Well, see, it's because the people there have IQ's in the 60's-70's and not much else. The only reason this isn't recognized is due to politically correct socialist liberals."

And in regards to the "poor grasp on reality", do we need to really go over whether or not marijuana is done almost entirely by people with low IQ's?

9) See 3 and 2.

10) I made an exaggeration. That wasn't in the best of taste, but it's the sentiment I get- the idea of the low IQ being overwhelmingly pathological and immoral, with this being almost entirely due, of course, to IQ. In specific regards to the ax-murderers bit, I've never once gotten the impression of people in special ed classes to be very crime prone, or really violent or malicious at all. And I think there's many, many, many others who will agree.

I should make it clear I'm not a leftist. I guess you'd label yourself a conservative, but racialists/hereditarians like yourself have a very bad habit of throwing around all sorts of meaningless, hollow buzzwords like "political correctness", "marxism", "socialism", "egalitarianism", "realism" to their opposition, as if people ideological extremity would be opposed to them.

Surely only "liberals" would disagree or oppose your IQ fetishism, and the only reason many others don't openly agree is due to the specter of leftist socialism- such as the millions who boil down the worlds social ills due to IQ differences, including marijuana use.

It's also funny how you'd focus so much on how I've made sarcastic remarks in response to what was originally an exasperated, gleeful tirade on how terrible low IQ people are. They do, after all, in your words, "debase everything they touch", and were "amazed" at how Hernstein and Murray didn't say this.