Are you saying that the simple fact that many people have come to the same conclusion disconfirms that conclusion?
Notice how neither you nor my previous interlocutor skipped a beat about the racial hierarchy I laid out, despite that not being in either of the previous two definitions of HBD on this thread. That's because the bailey is so well-understood it usually doesn't even need to be said.
> HBD (or "human biodiversity") is a euphemism for the view that there are genetic racial differences in intelligence.
and the "bailey" can be split into two parts: one follows from the mott, that races could be ranking according to intelligence. There's obviously no MaB fallacy here. The second part is the specific racial ranking you provided. But no one had mentioned that until you got here, so it's clear that there's no intentional MaB fallacy going on.
No one was trying to affirm any specific ranking of races by intelligence. That's a closely related, but very different kind of question (a very empirical type question).
jasonhansel takes issue with the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence
You take issue with another, related, one of HBD's ideas: a specific ranking of races by intelligence that it advances.
I was only supposing that the first claim seems likely to be true, so I'm not sure that there has been any substantive disagreement between us on those two matters.