They are probably including their self in the question they pose. Why do you think that the individual who suggests an idea has to perfectly embody it, else be a hypocrite?
It's a crappy old airframe because it's designed specifically to be low down to accommodate airstairs, meaning it won't fit modern large engines. It's anachronistic design and has to make tradeoffs in order to stay relevant (even before the MAX, the NG had those weird squished engine nacelles).
The crazy workarounds are maybe bad designs, but an airframe design that's still in demand after 50 years and been built 10,000+ times isn't a crappy design.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone familiar with aviation agree that the 737 is a poorly designed airframe...
It's only in demand because of inertia. This is like claiming that Windows is great for no other reason than because so many people use it, or that the US government is a great idea just because it hasn't collapsed yet.
If you think it's so great, then why don't you explain why you can't put today's large high-bypass turbofan engines on it in the normal position without them hitting the runway? How exactly is that a "great design"? It may have been a great design in 1967, but it isn't now, just like a 1967 Mustang chassis may have been OK then, but is totally inadequate now.
No, I think you are. The 737's airframe includes landing gear designed for using ladders instead of jetways, and wings that are thus too low to the ground, which is why they placed the new nacelles the way they did, causing this problem in the first place.
Are you suggesting that genetics have nothing to do with Intelligence? AFAIK it isn't much but I find it hard to believe that it's nothing. Our genes make us smarter than other animals, why shouldn't they make a difference between humans?
Also I just listed all possibilities that came to my mind, whether I think they're likely or not.
I believe that was sarcasm, mocking that kind of very vocal people who like to argue that intelligence, gender and race are purely a social construct and have no physical foundation. Extreme offense is usually taken when someone attempts to correlate intelligence with race.
Very few people argue that intelligence is a "social construct", though the position taken by scientists and philosophers in the area is that race and gender are "social constructs"; that doesn't make them not real, though - but it does mean they're only about as real as money. A kind of objectivity obtained through many subjectivities.
But if you don't know that, intelligence being correlated with ethnicity is a plausible hypothesis. We shouldn't take offense when someone who doesn't know the data tries to correlate intelligence ethnicity purely because they are interested in biology. Which is of course probably not the motivation of most people who claim there's a correlation.
If genetics played a roll in intelligence don't you think we'd see some intellectual differences between groups of genetically similar people(i.e. races), like we do with physical characteristics? Some races of people are taller than others on average, and some races are more resistant to certain diseases. Obviously we don't see differences like this when it comes to cognitive ability though.
Different ethnicities have different physical characteristics because they are adapted to different environments. Being able to efficiently use sunlight is useful in high altitudes, being able to tolerate heat and intensive sunlight is useful near the equator. Intelligence is useful everywhere.
