|
Post by Amadan on Mar 10, 2017 12:20:30 GMT -5
Because a Wikipedia article has citations you think that makes it accurate? You say a Wikipeida article carries more weight than my asserting something because I say so. Oh, I see the problem here. You believe what you read in Wikipedia because it has a citation? No. I said Wikipedia has more credibility than you, when you offer nothing other than your personal opinion. In this case, I actually know that what Wikipedia says (about the premise of the Bell Curve) is more accurate than what you said. That's all. Everything else is a construct of your fetid need to straw-man and jeer. You certainly didn't, so your opinion has no weight.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 10, 2017 12:34:03 GMT -5
Problematic for you because you're a White man. Not problematic for me because I'm neither White nor Asian and you've undermined your contention Murray's not a White supremacist by stating "Asians are superior to Whites" and Murray declares both are superior to Blacks and Latinos. In case you didn't know, let me school ya before they fool ya: That's Racist. Nah, it's problematic because it's inconsistent with white nationalism/white supremacy. The very source you cited--the SPLC--to demonstrate that Murray was a white supremacist (the SPLC calls him a "white nationalist") defines the ideology thusly: For Murray, one simply can't say this fits, given--again--that he doesn't proclaim that the "white race" is superior to all other races, with regard to IQ or anything else. As to claiming that the supposition--whites are superior to blacks when it comes to IQ, and Asians are superior to whites--is racist as a matter of course, I disagree. Of course, I see race as largely a social construct and therefore meaningless when it comes to capabilities of any sort, but nonetheless there is data on IQ and race, as Amadan notes, for people who see meaning in these concepts.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 10, 2017 12:50:21 GMT -5
Without having read his stuff, is he saying that some groups by their nature have higher IQ's or score better? Which of course can be the result of many socio/economic factors. Change those factors and over time, the scores will change.
It's racist to say that blacks can't have an IQ as high as a while person, and that neither can test as high as an Asian person.
But I don't think it's racist to say that on average, Asians test the highest, and so forth.
Of course, what to do about is problematic and I don't know from what little I read that Murray offers anything to solve that.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 10, 2017 13:08:01 GMT -5
Without having read his stuff, is he saying that some groups by their nature have higher IQ's or score better? Which of course can be the result of many socio/economic factors. Change those factors and over time, the scores will change. It's the "by their nature" part that is controversial (and misunderstood). Some groups do have higher IQs, on average. That's simply a fact. Is there a biological basis for that? Murray argues that it is mostly genetic. And the fact that genes have more influence on intelligence than environment is in fact fairly widely (if quietly) accepted among scientists. The "live wire" is the obvious conclusion to jump to: "Therefore, certain races are genetically predisposed to be more/less intelligent." Even if genes do partially or even fully determine intelligence, that last conclusion is a large leap. Where Murray goes off the rails, IMO, is a few steps beyond that - given that certain groups score lower on IQ tests, he makes a variety of prescriptions for addressing social ills that, well, happen to adapt themselves very well to certain white supremacist arguments, even if he never comes out and says that some groups are just destined to be untermenschen.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 10, 2017 13:11:48 GMT -5
Because a Wikipedia article has citations you think that makes it accurate? You say a Wikipeida article carries more weight than my asserting something because I say so. Oh, I see the problem here. You believe what you read in Wikipedia because it has a citation? No. I said Wikipedia has more credibility than you, when you offer nothing other than your personal opinion. Nah. That's just your personal animosity. I offered a lot more than my personal opinion in the second post of this thread as MichaelW noted. He seemed to pick up on it, but then he has the advantage of not being you. How's that? Because you wrote it? Well, I can't take all the credit. You make it so easy for me. Not with you, but as long as it does with the editors who publish and pay for it, who cares? Problematic for you because you're a White man. Not problematic for me because I'm neither White nor Asian and you've undermined your contention Murray's not a White supremacist by stating "Asians are superior to Whites" and Murray declares both are superior to Blacks and Latinos. In case you didn't know, let me school ya before they fool ya: That's Racist. Nah, it's problematic because it's inconsistent with white nationalism/white supremacy. The very source you cited--the SPLC--to demonstrate that Murray was a white supremacist (the SPLC calls him a "white nationalist") defines the ideology thusly: For Murray, one simply can't say this fits, given--again--that he doesn't proclaim that the "white race" is superior to all other races, with regard to IQ or anything else. As to claiming that the supposition--whites are superior to blacks when it comes to IQ, and Asians are superior to whites--is racist as a matter of course, I disagree. Of course, I see race as largely a social construct and therefore meaningless when it comes to capabilities of any sort, but nonetheless there is data on IQ and race, as Amadan notes, for people who see meaning in these concepts. People do see meaning in the reality of race. It's not a concept. As far as the Southern Poverty Law Center's opinion on Charles Murray, White Supremacist, I share it. You don't have to agree with it. The SPLC is a well-respected and regarded organization for racial justice and your definition is only your self-serving opinion to defend Murray's rancid racist ramblings. Me? I believe in the man's own words tell me all I need to know about him. " A huge number of well-meaning whites fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It's going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say.” —regarding his book, Losing Ground, quoted in “Daring Research or Social Science Pornography?: Charles Murray,” The New York Times Magazine, 1994 People like being told their beliefs are supported by science and they really like it when "science" tells them they're better than someone else by a roll of the genetic dice. Everybody needs self-affirmation, but when it comes by standing on the backs of Black people by a mainstreamed bigot, I shrug my shoulders. Murray really needs to spend his sunset years doing something more productive than venting his miserable spleen on eugneics and White supremacist claptrap. You don't end racism by saying race doesn't exist. There is ample evidence to the contrary that's simply not true.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 10, 2017 13:26:48 GMT -5
No. I said Wikipedia has more credibility than you, when you offer nothing other than your personal opinion. Nah. That's just your personal animosity. I offered a lot more than my personal opinion in the second post of this thread as MichaelW noted. He seemed to pick up on it, but then he has the advantage of not being you. You posted a copy & paste from the SPLC, which has already been discussed. As for personal animosity, look up "projection." Did you notice how everyone else in the thread, when it's not about you, is having civil conversations about actual facts, arguments, and evidence?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 10, 2017 14:15:09 GMT -5
Nah. That's just your personal animosity. I offered a lot more than my personal opinion in the second post of this thread as MichaelW noted. He seemed to pick up on it, but then he has the advantage of not being you. You posted a copy & paste from the SPLC, which has already been discussed. It's been discussed because I brought the information to the debate. What have you brought? Zip. Look up "Malcolm X: "I believe in the brotherhood of man, all men, but I don't believe in brotherhood with anybody who doesn't want brotherhood with me. I believe in treating people right, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to treat somebody right who doesn't know how to return the treatment."
Did you notice it is of no interest to me what "everyone else" does? What I did notice was a few White guys defending another White guy's right to get his racist eugenics/White supremacy freak on. I beg to differ with that defense. You haven't brought any civil convesation, actual facts or evidence. Just an opinion The Bell Curve isn't racist based upon...welll, nothing really. You've provided ZERO actual facts or evidence that it isn't. Where's your actual facts or evidence supporting your flimsy and feeble opinion? What "everyone else" is doing doesn't me I have to to do it. This is debate, not fucking Happy Hour. My opinion doesn't change because somone like you and one or two others don't like it. This thread isn't about me, Amadan but I know how much you enjoy trying to make it about me. Try harder.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 10, 2017 14:22:07 GMT -5
Without having read his stuff, is he saying that some groups by their nature have higher IQ's or score better? Which of course can be the result of many socio/economic factors. Change those factors and over time, the scores will change. It's the "by their nature" part that is controversial (and misunderstood). Some groups do have higher IQs, on average. That's simply a fact. Is there a biological basis for that? Murray argues that it is mostly genetic. And the fact that genes have more influence on intelligence than environment is in fact fairly widely (if quietly) accepted among scientists. The "live wire" is the obvious conclusion to jump to: "Therefore, certain races are genetically predisposed to be more/less intelligent." Even if genes do partially or even fully determine intelligence, that last conclusion is a large leap. Where Murray goes off the rails, IMO, is a few steps beyond that - given that certain groups score lower on IQ tests, he makes a variety of prescriptions for addressing social ills that, well, happen to adapt themselves very well to certain white supremacist arguments, even if he never comes out and says that some groups are just destined to be untermenschen. I agree. more or less. But I think the reason behind the groupings--race--is severely lacking, in terms of clear scientific and demonstrable bases, aside from certain exceptions of limited ethnic groups who have engaged in little or no breeding with other ethnic groups over the course of many generations, none of which are pertinent here. If the above it take into account, the conclusions are meaningless, insofar as such predisposition only truly exists at the level of the individual. Without knowing such specific genetic information, it is impossible to argue that skin color alone is predictive of anything. Imo.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 10, 2017 14:37:15 GMT -5
It's been discussed because I brought the information to the debate. No, you've brought nothing but your opinions and your animosity. You are not debating. You are simply making assertions and posting long screeds about other people's racism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 14:54:36 GMT -5
Haven't read the books, so I can't comment on what they're about. However, I want to congratulate Michael on choosing the perfect thread title.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 10, 2017 16:19:41 GMT -5
It's been discussed because I brought the information to the debate. What have you brought? Zip. It's been discussed because I brought the information to the debate. No, you've brought nothing but your opinions and your animosity. You are not debating. You are simply making assertions and posting long screeds about other people's racism. For someone's opinion that supposedy carries no weight you certainly spend fo a lot of time responding to it. But it does raise the question of whether making silly assertions and sillier animosity is your way of ducking out bringing any information to the debate besides your unsupported opinions? Sure I'm debating. With MichaelW and robeiae. With you? You're too busy repeating your Word of the Day: animosity. Any debate about Charles Murray glossing over the inherent and demonstrable racism of The Bell Curve is a profoundly shallow and intellecutally stunted one. Don't want to have that debate? Step out the way you came in. I've made my case how Murray and his shitty book are racist, Amadan. Balls in your court to make yours they aren't. Show, don't tell. Or keep ducking I already know which one you'll choose.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 10, 2017 16:43:08 GMT -5
It's been discussed because I brought the information to the debate. What have you brought? Zip. No, you've brought nothing but your opinions and your animosity. You are not debating. You are simply making assertions and posting long screeds about other people's racism. For someone's opinion that supposedy carries no weight you certainly spend fo a lot of time responding to it. But it does raise the question of whether making silly assertions and sillier animosity is your way of ducking out bringing any information to the debate besides your unsupported opinions? Sure I'm debating. With MichaelW and robeiae. With you? You're too busy repeating your Word of the Day: animosity. Any debate about Charles Murray glossing over the inherent and demonstrable racism of The Bell Curve is a profoundly shallow and intellecutally stunted one. Don't want to have that debate? Step out the way you came in. I've made my case how Murray and his shitty book are racist, Amadan. Balls in your court to make yours they aren't. Show, don't tell. Or keep ducking I already know which one you'll choose. You've made no case. You've stated your opinion, based on you being black and agreeing with a page from the SPLC. I didn't say Murray isn't racist (he is, though he is not, as Rob pointed out, a white nationalist, at least not from any evidence I have seen) - I said the central premise of the Bell Curve is not inherently racist. I also pointed out that it can, and has been, used to support racist arguments. There is a difference, but you've been too busy getting worked up, posting long diatribes about how totally chill and unbothered you are, and trying to provoke an intemperate reaction (give it up, you can't), to make such distinctions, all while laughably claiming you are "debating." Rob, Michael, and I have all said largely the same thing about the Bell Curve, and your reaction to all of us has been largely the same - yelling about racism and how by the authority vested in you as a genuine black person, you're going to educate us white folks. You are not debating. Debate implies engagement and refuting points, rather than just stomping your feet calling bullshit and yelling "racism." Also, you were the one who introduced the word of the day. Game, set, match. Good day, sir.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 10, 2017 17:30:50 GMT -5
For someone's opinion that supposedy carries no weight you certainly spend fo a lot of time responding to it. But it does raise the question of whether making silly assertions and sillier animosity is your way of ducking out bringing any information to the debate besides your unsupported opinions? Sure I'm debating. With MichaelW and robeiae. With you? You're too busy repeating your Word of the Day: animosity. Any debate about Charles Murray glossing over the inherent and demonstrable racism of The Bell Curve is a profoundly shallow and intellecutally stunted one. Don't want to have that debate? Step out the way you came in. I've made my case how Murray and his shitty book are racist, Amadan. Balls in your court to make yours they aren't. Show, don't tell. Or keep ducking I already know which one you'll choose. You've made no case. You've stated your opinion, based on you being black and agreeing with a page from the SPLC. I didn't say Murray isn't racist (he is, though he is not, as Rob pointed out, a white nationalist, at least not from any evidence I have seen) - I said the central premise of the Bell Curve is not inherently racist. I also pointed out that it can, and has been, used to support racist arguments. There is a difference, but you've been too busy getting worked up, posting long diatribes about how totally chill and unbothered you are, and trying to provoke an intemperate reaction (give it up, you can't), to make such distinctions, all while laughably claiming you are "debating." Too late. Already got an intemperate reaction. My very presence here will always get a rise out of you. It has before and it still does. Wrong again. It doesn't matter to me what you and robeiae have said about The Bell Curve and MichaelW hasn't read it, but if you think majority rules in a thread, have at it. As far as yelling about racism goes, I'm not the guy who runs around bragging about how many Black people he hangs out with. Not that it means you actually know anything about Black people because clearly you do not. I'm not stomping my feet. I'm waking it up because it keeps falling asleep reading your dully repetitive posts. You aren't debating. You're screaming about racism. You won't answer my questions. You're mean to me. Yada-yada-yada. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Still fillerbustering, huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 18:46:15 GMT -5
They just don't make civil discourse like they used to.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 15, 2017 8:58:10 GMT -5
|
|