|
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote:You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given. Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
What is your point Stan? Why does it matter? What value is there to being able to say you can prove one "race" is smarter than another? It will still come down to individual behavior, something that is not predictable nor measurable by a test. Many of the worst criminals in human history were quite intelligent. This doesn't mean you can say smart people are all criminals any more than you can say .. exactly what is it again you're trying to say?
This is great ... we're seeing conservative "logic" in play. It goes something like this:
1. Make an assertion. The conservative places himself in the affirmative position in a debate.
2. Opponent responds. Opponent attempts to disprove conservative assertion by citing evidence and offers a competing theory/philosophy.
3. Conservative insists that unless opponent proves his alternate philosophy, then the conservative wins the debate, without the need to prove his case.
Fail.
|
Oh and... obviously yes we could differentiate social conservatism from economic conservatism, yada yada, but the obvious context of the word "Conservative" in this discussion has been the accepted political group identified as Conservatives. There's no need to go farther than that because it sufficiently labels and categorizes the group of people and the overarching themes of the philosophy - I'm not so much attacking individual conservative positions as I am attacking the way in which conservative positions are derived.
Opinion based on belief instilled by The Old Book of Jewish Fairy Tales is of measurably lower value than opinion based on fact and observation.
|
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote:
You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Yours is a reactionary way of going about things. You see someone who looks different from you, and your cultural differences cause you to believe they are somehow inferior. How is this any different from white settlers claiming intellectual superiority over the world because they had better weaponry (a ridiculous test if there ever was one)?
And either you're completely misusing the term a priori, or you're using it to justify your reactionary belief that different = inferior/superior based on the fact that human nature is quite selfish and competitive.
On December 09 2008 04:27 HnR)hT wrote:
QibingZero, you are asking for impossibly strict standards of proof before you can even grant the possiblity, while assuming that "no differences in intelligence" is the default position. Isn't that being dogmatic?
You seem to misunderstand that you are taking a position which is against the consensus in this matter. You are also purposefully ignoring the implications of what you're talking about (how people are to be treated if indeed you somehow prove that whites are more intelligent than blacks on average). What good is going to do anyone to 'grant the possibility' of the races differing on an intellectual basis? That's like asking me to grant the possibility that the sun goes supernova tomorrow. Sure, but is it worth taking that into account in my daily life? Hell no.
The point here is that the position held in every respected society is opposite that of yours, and the reasons for that have been put forward quite extensively in this thread. So naturally, the burden of proof is on you.
You started off this tangent by comparing this to Intelligent Design. I'd love to hear your explanation for how 'denying racial differences in intelligence' is anything remotely like tossing away hundreds of years of scientific research so that people are able to make peace with their holy book of choice. It's fairly obvious that your perspective is skewed.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 09 2008 04:34 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote:You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given. Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence". What is your point Stan? Why does it matter? What value is there to being able to say you can prove one "race" is smarter than another? It will still come down to individual behavior, something that is not predictable nor measurable by a test. Many of the worst criminals in human history were quite intelligent. This doesn't mean you can say smart people are all criminals any more than you can say .. exactly what is it again you're trying to say?
It means no more "No Child Left Behind", no more affirmative action, and other dumb and unfair policies to get more minorities into the sciences, professions, etc.
This is great ... we're seeing conservative "logic" in play. It goes something like this:
1. Make an assertion. The conservative places himself in the affirmative position in a debate.
2. Opponent responds. Opponent attempts to disprove conservative assertion by citing evidence and offers a competing theory/philosophy.
3. Conservative insists that unless opponent proves his alternate philosophy, then the conservative wins the debate, without the need to prove his case.
Fail.
Are you kidding? What evidence? All the evidence given here so far was by me.
And, when did I insist that opponents proved their alternative philosophy? I only want them to admit that, in light of what we know, there is a decent chance that my assertion is in fact true.
|
On December 09 2008 04:42 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 04:34 Louder wrote:On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote:You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given. Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence". What is your point Stan? Why does it matter? What value is there to being able to say you can prove one "race" is smarter than another? It will still come down to individual behavior, something that is not predictable nor measurable by a test. Many of the worst criminals in human history were quite intelligent. This doesn't mean you can say smart people are all criminals any more than you can say .. exactly what is it again you're trying to say? It means no more "No Child Left Behind", no more affirmative action, and other dumb and unfair policies to get more minorities into the sciences, professions, etc. Show nested quote +This is great ... we're seeing conservative "logic" in play. It goes something like this:
1. Make an assertion. The conservative places himself in the affirmative position in a debate.
2. Opponent responds. Opponent attempts to disprove conservative assertion by citing evidence and offers a competing theory/philosophy.
3. Conservative insists that unless opponent proves his alternate philosophy, then the conservative wins the debate, without the need to prove his case.
Fail. Are you kidding? What evidence? All the evidence given here so far was by me. And, when did I insist that opponents proved their alternative philosophy? I only want them to admit that, in light of what we know, there is a decent chance that my assertion is in fact true.
No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with using standardized testing as THE model for measuring student and overall school performance and then that useless data determines individual school funding.
Affirmative Action... are you fucking serious? When has anyone ever actually had AA effect them negatively? All I've ever heard are hyperbole, generic stories about "the underqualified black guy" getting the job a Harvard white guy should have had. Nevermind the fact that you are seriously suggesting we should not encourage ALL students - just the "good races" - to pursue challenging careers? Are you aware that there are substantial numbers of those dirty negros practicing law and medicine, designing your cars, and OH YEAH RUNNING YOUR COUNTRY?
There are enough stupid white folks in this country that after 8 years of Bush and out of 120 million votes, Obama only won by SIX MILLION. That means 48% of voting Americans voted for MCCAIN. HOLY SHIT. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Not only did white people elect Bush, they nearly elected McCain! And I'm sorry, but white people have a pretty long history of fucking people over based on arbitrary assertions of superiority - and this ties in neatly with my statements, that you just refuse to respond to - that it's about individual merit and behavior - that you can't predict who will be a criminal or a president based on their race - and if you think otherwise, then you are ignorant.
|
On another note... I have been temp banned from this forum for calling Darki a newb (which he is) - let's see if the mods will ban someone for blatant outright racism 
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
|
On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote:Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
COP OUT ALERT! Why respond to what I say when you can marginalize my opinion with generalizations?????
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, describing aa as "dumb and unfair" is not exactly a model of nuance.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned? 
|
On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote:Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned?
Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed.
And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change.
So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist.
|
WOops .. accidentally quoted instead of edited my last post
|
|
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 09 2008 05:08 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote:Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned? Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed. And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change. So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist.
If you are so far to the left that you consider mere opposition to affirmative action as racist, then we have nothing to talk about. You have to agree on some set of basic principles before you can have a discussion about anything.
And, you are being deliberately obtuse by interpreting anything I wrote as saying that "blacks are categorically inferior" to whites. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero problem saying exactly what I think. If I thought that "blacks are categorically inferior", as you put it, then I would say so and I would say why I think it's true. The reason I haven't said it is because I don't believe anything of the sort.
I will not respond any further until you apologize for the warrantless racism charge. 
|
On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote:Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
The difference is obvious. One asserts their racist statement bluntly, while the other uses more intellectual means to try to persuade by gaining recognition.
The 'intellectual' argument is basically social darwinism. The white rich people are smarter, therefore they deserve to be at the top and do what they wish. Let the free market run supreme, destroy all welfare programs, and exploit whomever you want. I'm not exaggerating here. This is the neoconservative policy advanced by Charles Murray and the like, as they deny the historical and socio-economic that make up the divide between races in our current society.
|
On December 09 2008 05:21 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 05:08 Louder wrote:On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote:Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned? Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed. And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change. So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist. If you are so far to the left that you consider mere opposition to affirmative action as racist, then we have nothing to talk about. You have to agree on some set of basic principles before you can have a discussion about anything. And, you are being deliberately obtuse by interpreting anything I wrote as saying that "blacks are categorically inferior" to whites. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero problem saying exactly what I think. If I thought that "blacks are categorically inferior", as you put it, then I would say so and I would say why I think it's true. The reason I haven't said it is because I don't believe anything of the sort. I will not respond any further until you apologize for the warrantless racism charge.
Warrantless? Let's put that to a vote.
![[image loading]](/userpoll/draw.php?poll_id=4733)
Poll: Is HT a Racist?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 09 2008 05:22 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote:Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke. The difference is obvious. One asserts their racist statement bluntly, while the other uses more intellectual means to try to persuade by gaining recognition.
That's a disgusting statement. It's in the same league as comparing Bush to Hitler.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
racism does not have to be a conscious choice, it could just be the acceptance of certain ideas that have historically dominated in the person's choice surrounding. someone who is heavily into outmdated modes of thought, say those that make use of racialistic outlooks, will probably accept the entire ideology without really putting effort into generating it step by step, using racist assumptions. i don't think ht is a racist in the way of your regular deep south redneck, he is just obviously not familiar with the history of his ideas.
and tests for intelligence are not biased solely because the test themselves are culturally biased, the subjects could be historically and socially formed to make any straightforward assessment of "pure physical ability" impossible. it is possible that black children have on average less resources to develop their faculties, or that they live life differently.
|
Norway28738 Posts
I certainly think ht is racist. I'd like to ban him, as quite frankly, I am literally disgusted by reading his posts.
But I also don't think I should do it, if nothing else than because he represents my polar opposite in virtually every way and this means I am the wrong person to act as moderator regarding him.
|
On December 09 2008 05:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I certainly think ht is racist. I'd like to ban him, as quite frankly, I am literally disgusted by reading his posts.
But I also don't think I should do it, if nothing else than because he represents my polar opposite in virtually every way and this means I am the wrong person to act as moderator regarding him.
<3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
