Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 05, 2015, 08:22:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 159
1  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Greek Referendum on IMF/Troika deal on: July 03, 2015, 09:06:04 pm
Things are so crazy right now that, I don't know, the fact that Allende appointed Pinochet seems relevant.

But on your query, yes, of course they would have done (ANEL are also 'anti-austerity' and are the hardliners on military spending, geographical VAT differentials and so on). Not sure whether it would have mattered much though.

I think you're right. This is pretty spooky behavior...
Quote
In a rare move, 16 former armed forces leaders of Greece have signed a joint declaration calling on the Greek people to show "calm and national unity" ahead of Sunday's referendum on whether to accept creditors' demands for more austerity.
The letter said "Greece is at a highly critical moment in its history that will require difficult and inevitably painful decisions ... All Greeks, united and above party political lines and divisions, must help with all means available to address this situation with calm and national unity."
The letter was signed by three former chiefs of the armed forces, nine ex-army chiefs, two former heads of the navy and two former heads of the air force.

http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/business_news/national_business/article_9c650a97-d150-575c-ac29-23f77de1a6b4.html
2  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Greek Referendum on IMF/Troika deal on: July 03, 2015, 08:31:11 pm
Increasingly suspecting that going into bed with ANEL was an error.

How so? Do you think that the Eurogroup would have reacted more favorably to a Potami-SYRIZA coalition?
3  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Greek Referendum on IMF/Troika deal on: July 03, 2015, 08:22:37 pm
Quote
Mr. Tsipras, whose political career is on the line in the vote, took time out Thursday evening to criticize the news media. During a televised interview, he complained of unbalanced coverage. When challenged by a reporter, he offered official figures showing that the six main stations in Greece had given about eight minutes to a no rally and 46 minutes to a yes rally.

The bulk of the coverage of the no rally came from one station, ERT, he said, which had been shut down by the previous government and which gave both sides about equal time.

He said that one station, Skai, gave zero minutes to the no rally, which drew thousands to a square in front of the Parliament building and more than seven minutes to the equally well-attended yes rally the next day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/world/europe/alexis-tsipras-greece-debt-crisis-referendum.html

Will "the oligarchs" crush SYRIZA?

One of SYRIZA's election pledges was the end of favorable state contracts to certain media companies. This pledge was a key part of SYRIZA's platform because commercial licenses have been granted in a clientelistic manner; both PASOK and ND offered licenses to allies and friends, a commercial television has never been sold.

This goes to show that for all of the EU's bluster, SYRIZA is ultimately the party that stands the best shot at "modernizing" or "rationalizing" Greece. They were the only party that pledged to take aims to reduce tax evasion and reduce corruption. Nevertheless, the Troika has attempted to boot them from power because SYRIZA dared to take a stand at the mythology of "contractionary fiscal expansion", which is not really concerned with corruption or the lack of optimal markets in key sectors of the Greek economy.
4  General Politics / Economics / Re: Greece to Leave the Euro Zone on: July 02, 2015, 01:17:57 am
Ordinarily, I'd be irritated at this seemingly off-topic discussion but it's a pretty telling discussion.

The manner in which ag approaches the thorny student loan issue is interesting. He approaches it by thinking about ways in which students can optimize their situation in accordance with their preferences while facing certain constraints. Meanwhile, the rest of the forum appears to be approaching this issue by thinking about normative questions asking whether or not it's just for students to face these constraints when they live in an affluent society? In my view, this characterizes the debate surrounding Greece quite nicely. Sure, Greece could have approached the negotiations differently or prepared for default differently etc. I like discussing questions of strategy but the questions that matter are normative: is it just for creditor countries to create humanitarian crises in debtor nations for the sake of illusive "competitiveness" that tends to create less than ideal distributional outcomes? This question could be posed in a manner that doesn't betray my bias.

Anyways, I share ag's perspectives on student debt but that doesn't inform my stance on public policy choices. Frankly, I don't care all that much about what students could do, I care about the realm of the real where students are drowning in debt, in large part because they're being swindled by for-profit universities or universities that are attempting to fill funding gaps by expanding recreational services to make their campuses more attractive for foreigners or out of state students, which tends to push up the cost of tuition for in-state students.

edit: fwiw, I think that point 8 of ag's list mostly explains the Eurogroup's reaction to Greece. In the Eurogroup's reckoning, rules matter and rewarding a government that has done everything in its power to break with the Memorandum would send a bad signal to countries with better bargaining positions.
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / My Leave of Absence on: May 04, 2015, 07:21:25 pm
I'm going to be taking some time off from this forum. I don't think it has been healthy for me to be exposed to the inane garbage that increasingly dominates this forum. This doesn't mean that I'm leaving to send a message or anything like that. This isn't "passive aggressive". I'm leaving because I'm a selfish person who wants to focus on my life rather than arguments on the internet; I've been annoyed at the amount of time I waste on this forum. I'm making this thread because I don't want people to assume that I was in a car accident or whatever.

I want to live my life and focus on doing things that need to be done rather than "sperging" out and being constantly irritated at people who are wrong on the internet. I may or may not be back.

6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: U.S. Split Along Racial Lines on Backlash Against Police, Poll Finds on: May 04, 2015, 05:39:16 pm
"How dare you call White America racist!" - Atlas forum
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 05:23:08 pm
I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?

I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.

So if Geert Wilders political career was one long performance art project, you would suddenly find it okay?

This is a strange counter-factual. His career clearly isn't a performance art project. Even if Geert Wilders' political career was one long performance art project, I'm not sure how I would react because that would be utterly surreal. I'd like to think I would condemn him for promoting bigotry though.

I don't know what your point is ingemann. Are you irritated that I said "I wouldn't shed a tear for Geert Wilders"? That's pretty accurate, I hate him and condemn this project. Why do you think this means that I support terrorists?
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books on: May 04, 2015, 04:09:07 pm
Well, this was a wonderful act of intellectual masturbation on your part, A+ work Alcon; you're a smart man. Although your assumption about the intent of my posts was correct, you've missed the entire point of the post above: I think it's incredibly weird and toxic that you decided to engage in this world-class pedantry on a post I made about the implications of the supposed connection between genetic intelligence and racism. I've made similar posts before about other topics. Why this one?

From my perspective, the optics of this move look terrible. An educated white liberal unpacked the argument of a mixed-race leftist made against the idea of "genetic intelligence with regards to race" for the purpose of arguing in favor of a particular use of empirical evidence.

Fine Alcon: you win. I'm opposed to these studies because I'm worried about the malevolent intentions of others and am uncomfortable about the potential that the findings are correct. I don't want to be dumber than white people because of my genes. I don't want people to think I'm an intellectually inferior product because my skin is a certain tone and have indigenous ancestry. I don't want any of this and a bunch of hacks, who often have malevolent intentions, love summarizing dubious research into this topic. Although the aims of these hacks are diverse, it has the ultimate effect of convincing policymakers on the right to oppose immigration, affirmative action and "anti-racist" policy goals. Do you understand why I instinctually hate these people? They cast doubt on me, my mother and my relatives in Mexico. Furthermore, they cast doubt on some of my friends. These studies justify the latent racism of many white people. I don't want that.

I try to be as impartial as possible but I'm not able to on this topic. Maybe you are and maybe that's fine but don't act like you're a big man because you can do that. A (admittedly senile) substitute  teacher once told me that "Mexican immigrants are uneducated and stupid". I've been frequently told that I'm "not like other Mexicans" because I'm "smart". I can't be "impartial" and use empirical evidence in a scholarly fashion about these studies. They're an attack on my very existence. I can't just sit back and let a bunch of bigots trample my dignity. I'll reply to their posts, argue with them in public and defend my existence. If it's a bit sophistic, I accept that but I'm wary of saying "I hate Study X because I'm a 'minority'" because that appears like a weak attack, like an "appeal to emotion" or like intellectual weak tea.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 03:59:21 pm
I guess if the Catholic Church had send a assassin after Andres Serrano, TheDeadFlagBlues and his ilk would attack Andres Serrano.

Nope. I don't think Andres Serrano is a bigot, I just think his art is terrible/tasteless.

Geert Wilders is a politician of ill-repute who has attempted to stir up hate and bigotry. Andres Serrano is an artist who makes terrible art. One of these things is not like the other.
10  General Politics / Economics / Re: Battle of the economists: Paul Krugman vs Peter Schiff on: May 04, 2015, 03:50:20 pm
I voted for the economist over the charlatan clown who peddles defective financial products.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 03:46:06 pm
Quote
Many Muslims do believe that cartoons of Mohammed are offensive, but the reasons for that belief are widely misunderstood.

The explanation you most commonly hear for protests against depictions of Mohammed is that Islam condemns those portrayals as "blasphemy." But the truth may be simpler and far more universal. Mohammed is a venerated figure among Muslims, who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him such as the 2012 film Innocence of Muslims as an attack on their Muslim identity.

Dalia Mogahed, the director of research at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, explained that Mohammed is a beloved figure to Muslims, and "it is a human impulse to want to protect what's sacred to you."

Mogahed compared the cartoons to the issue of flag-burning in the United States, noting that a majority of Americans favor a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning for similar reasons: the flag is an important symbol of a national identity, and many Americans see flag-burning as an attack on that identity, or even on the country itself. That's not extremism or backwardness; it's about protecting something you cherish.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7517221/charlie-hebdo-blasphemy

To move this discussion away from what people think is offensive, why not investigate social scientific literature that has explored this topic?
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 03:38:23 pm
What is this sophistry? No one is discussing "offensive" in the legal sense of the term but rather in the sense of the term as it is defined by society. In most contexts, "offensive" means something that is done specifically to "offend" the sensibilities of another individual or another group. My point is incredibly simple: this exhibit was designed to flagrantly offend the sensibilities of Islam.

It's legal in the United States to call Mexicans "beaners", to call African-Americans the n-word, to call Jews "kikes" etc. It's legal to buy Bibles for the sake of burning them in a large bonfire on public property, it's legal to call generalized groups nasty, nasty things. Although I'm reluctantly opposed to legal censorship, I still look down upon all of these acts. I would boycott any store owned by someone who did any of these things. I would call the proponents of these acts "racists" or "bigots" or "chauvinists".

Likewise, I condemn Geert Wilders' fun gathering of quasi-fascists and extremists.  I think they're chauvinistic bigots. This is the beauty of free speech: any speech act that is deemed to be offensive by a community may be countered, condemned and punished by other speech acts. I don't need a government mandate to oppose stupid and vile behavior. I certainly don't need your permission. Your interpretation conforms to your belief that Islam is a threat to Western society. I don't think that's accurate or correct or constructive or remotely interesting. It's propagandized nonsense. Just because a few extremists are willing to kill someone for printing a cartoon means that people need to support bashing an entire community for the sake of punishing a few.

Okay, I'm done. I don't care to persuade a hypocrite who is willfully ignorant to condemn bigotry.
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 03:01:25 pm
I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. I, for one, am not personally offended by the use of the word "retard" or "f-ggot" (I'm not gay or mentally disabled) but I still think these terms are offensive if they're used in public because they slam stigmatized minority groups. If they were to be paraded around at an "GAY ANAL SEX = INSTANT AIDS cartoon drawing" contest or whatever, they'd be even more offensive to my sensibilities.

This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or assumptions that I don't understand.

On the question of offensiveness, you're dead wrong.  We respect people, their freedom of religion, expression, conscience, their right to be treated like anyone else in employment, housing, etc without respect to their identity.  We don't respect ideas.  I don't respect the ideas of Mohammed or Joseph Smith or any religious leader, and they don't need to respect my ideas.

Not creating depictions of their religious figures is a taboo in a religion.  We don't believe in that religion, so that rule doesn't apply to us in any way.  It's a taboo like not eating pork or drinking alcohol.  It's as silly as expecting us not to drink alcohol because Mormons might get offended.

Your idea is that we should just abide by whatever a minority group finds offensive.  That's completely untenable.  What if Muslims in a neighborhood are offended by gay people?  Should gay people never hold hands in that neighborhood or should they try to seem less gay?  After all, who are you to judge what muslims might find offensive?

I would agree if we were talking about a racist cartoon.  Racism is offensive to the general public, and for good reasons.  We have agreed as a society that racism is horrible.  We have not agreed that Mohammed is a magical, important religious figure deserving of respect.

And, that's why I support these cartoonists.  The muslims are not the victims here.  They're a huge group of people and they don't need to look at cartoons if they don't want, problem solved.  The victim is our free speech which is being hampered by violence and intimidation by muslims.

I don't respect this post. Smiley

You're mistaking my post for an advocacy of censorship or government action. I support no such thing. I'm merely stating that, in context, this cartoon drawing contest is a hateful, vile scheme designed to flagrantly bash Islam in a non-constructive manner. Although I believe it is rooted in racialized bigotry directed at group, I would still find it distasteful and vile if it was directed at Catholics or Presbyterians.

Who is "we"? I certainly don't agree with your ideas or values on this topic. My norms aren't your norms either. That's, more or less, the point of my posts: there are no commandments or rules that determine what is respectful and what isn't respectful. Judging whether or not something is tasteful, inoffensive or respectful must be done on a case by case basis that is attentive to social, cultural and political contexts. In most cases, trying to draw cartoons of Muhammad is pretty tasteless. It's tasteless because it's a weak critique of Islam, it's designed to anger/irritate/provoke Muslims rather than engender a constructive conversation about Islam etc. Does drawing a cartoon of Muhammad serve any purpose whatsoever? No. It's a cheap shot.

I suppose this is okay with you, right? After all, it's only attacking an idea. It's not necessarily directed at Jews, right?

14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 02:57:48 pm
This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or theological/philosophical/whatever schemas that I don't understand.

It's good to hear that you respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages and would equally condemn art like the piss Christ that offends Christians.

You know what's offensive to me? Anyone who would shut down free speech because someone might be "offended" by what they hear.  They, and those"offended" need to grow up and realize that there are people who won't always agree with them.

No, no; I don't respect the rights of religious bakers not to bake cakes for gay marriages because that's clear and obvious discrimination. It's also not a "speech" act, it's discrimination involving commerce, which was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, I would condemn art that flagrantly offends the sensibilities of Christians. I don't condone speech that is intended to incite hatred or bash the norms of others, so long as those norms aren't destructive.

Sure, I'm also opposed to those who would like to censure some speech acts using the writ of the government. With that being said, I reserve the right to condemn other speech acts using my speech acts. I think your post is disgusting and implicitly justifies racism. It mistakes the legal notion of "free speech" for the realities of discourse in society. It's a thoughtless, stupid post. Smiley
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 02:24:35 pm
I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.

What is vile or disrespectful about it?  Nobody ever seems to have an answer as to why a cartoon of Mohammed is offensive whatsoever.  

It's offensive because it incites Islamic hatred for the pure purpose of the provocation of a religious minority. It's offensive because Muslims think it is offensive, vile and disrespectful. This isn't a weird concept to me because I respect the concerns of human beings, even if they're rooted in experiences or theological/philosophical/whatever schemas that I don't understand. Even if I hated Islam (I don't), I would dislike this event because I think that public trolling is undignified garbage that isn't fit for polite society.
16  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Israeli Police adopt American practices on: May 04, 2015, 02:16:27 pm
I encourage the Ethiopian Jews to migrate to Canada; the only true safe haven for Black Jews.

17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 02:10:52 pm
I wouldn't mourn for Geert Wilders but I certainly wouldn't want to him to be shot by terrorists.

The usual suspects think that opponents of terrorism must applaud the courageous acts of far-right Islamophobes. I think this exhibit is vile, disrespectful and stupid. I wouldn't shed a tear for Geer Wilders or anyone in this contest if they were to be shot. With that being said, I'm glad they weren't shot. That would be bad because they're people.
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Best Third Way leader on: May 04, 2015, 01:46:09 pm
Zapatero.
19  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Freddie Gray on: May 04, 2015, 01:16:27 am
I've read this as "Freddie Gibbs" 3 times and clicked it three times only to find disappointment and loss. Sad
20  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: May 04, 2015, 01:12:03 am
Ah but am I ever going to do that? Moreover, how do I know that I could do that? What if the ideas, formulas, proofs and alternatives are deeply flawed? I'm never going to know because I have no interest in physics. What if I simply don't care? I'd argue that most people don't care about physics or biology or modern medicine but they accept their findings. How is that more rational than going to church on Sunday?
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books on: May 04, 2015, 12:52:46 am
I suppose you have a point but I'm a bit puzzled about this discussion. There are hundreds of posts on this forum that are ill-thought out, immature, childish and dumb: why did you choose to reply to mine? Admittedly, my argument was an "on a napkin" one that drew from random information I've read on the internet. I didn't formulate a coherent argument because I say things that are off the top of my head on forums. I don't get why you're lecturing me about the nature of empirical evidence. This isn't an essay that I'm submitting for a grade or whatever. 

I mean, you "caught me" in my devious attempt to defeat a racist troll on the internet with an impromptu post but I'm not sure what has been accomplished. If you'd like to discuss the issue, I'm okay with that but that's not the sense I've gotten from engaging in this conversation with you.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books on: May 03, 2015, 09:57:03 pm
We didn't evolve "equally".







23  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: DeadFlagBlues/Einzeige v. Bernie Sanders/David Duke on: May 03, 2015, 08:07:16 pm
Now definitive proof: Bernie Sanders is a white power candidate.

This is more true than I'd like it to be. Bernie Sanders will only receive significant support from White America. He won't resonate with Latinos or African-Americans because of his register and the values he's referencing. He has no experience talking to these communities.

For reference, here is the full quote.

Obviously, I'd win Scandinavia. I am an attractive man who understands its needs and values. Namely, I understand Swedish youths because I listen to Yung Lean. I listen to Jens Lekman, the Knife, Jose Gonzalez and Kings of Convenience. I can speak Spanish to Chilean-Swedes. I am a winner.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books on: May 03, 2015, 07:59:16 pm
Yes, I understand that and I've seen the same studies, but proposing that malaria counts

Malaria's effects on intelligence does not necessarily suggest that that there is a substantial link between genetic evolution and intelligence: the effects of malaria on cognitive functions are directly related to the effects of the disease. The effects of malaria on the brain, due to high fevers, do not necessarily impact genes. I'm pretty interested in the studies I've read about Sickle Cell Anemia and IQ scores but I can't say that I'm well-versed enough in this field to comment about them.

I absolutely buy the possibility that neurological sequelae from disease can affect IQ.  I also understand how that's not genetic (obviously).  I'm just a little puzzled by your apparent implication that the factors you listed somehow add up to preclude a genetic basis for IQ.  It seems like you're throwing the kitchen sink (that is, every possible argument against heritable intelligence) at the issue in a preemptive attempt to discredit some argument.  That's a really unsound way of analyzing things, and it doesn't successfully discredit the argument you're trying to dismiss.

I mean, you may think Bobloblaw is trying to make some terrible racist point (maybe), but you can't really forward a set of explanatory variables, have someone point out your explanatory variables fail to explain some observed variation, and then act like that's an unreasonable critique of your argument.

Anyways, I'm obviously averse to claims made about "genetic intelligence".

Are you claiming that there isn't evidence that IQ has some very strong heritable elements, or are you somehow limiting this to race when you say "genetic intelligence"?

It's worth studying but should be studied with extreme caution and a sense of ethical responsibility. I'd also add that in an age where health outcomes are increasingly unequal and biotechnology is rapidly advancing towards developing neuroenhancement procedures, I worry that we may live in an era where racism is more easily justified. This is the only area where I think being "anti-science" could make a degree of sense.

Could you explain what you mean here more precisely?  Obviously, it's a bad idea to use IQ as a pretext to do manipulative, disruptive, and violating social policy, and there are a lot of racist jerks who would be into that kind of social policy.  But how is that "anti-science" to not pursue those policies?  It's not anti-science to elect to not use a technology because it's a terrible idea.  That would be like saying it's "anti-science" to not shoot a flamethrower on a crowded street.  It's not "anti-science" to not fire a flamethrower recklessly just because a flamethrower is a form of science.  It would be "anti-science" to deny the existence of the flamethrower, or deny its observable effects.  ("Anti-science" is probably the wrong phrase, anyway.  Let's go with "willfully delusional.")

Or are you saying that, even if studies were to find an unexplained linkage between IQ and race after controls, we should do our best to discredit these findings, because they would feed into policies and attitudes you don't like?  Just to be clear, I totally think that kind of finding would feed into racist jerks...but does that warrant dismissing any such finding, and accusing those who observed it of being lying, racist jerks?  I think there are obvious, glaring, gross problems with that approach, too.

In the context of this discussion, I'm referring to race. I agree that there's probably some sort of heritable intelligence but this information makes me very uncomfortable. As far as race is concerned, I don't think there's any connection. Adopted children from Africa do as well as white children on IQ tests.

No offense Alcon but I don't really care about which argumentative approach you find to be "unsound". This is a forum on the internet. I try to present my arguments in a manner that makes them readable and that presents a narrative. This isn't a court room or a logic class. I'm simply presenting a series of ideas in a narrative format. My narrative is pretty simple: there are a litany of deep flaws that characterize genetic tests. Because I'm not a geneticist or a scientist, I cannot really dig deep into these flaws. I'm a laymen and my role in this conversation is to present some evidence in a nice, readable format.

As for your final point, I'm not sure what my approach would be to scientists who found a link between genetic factors which may be construed as "race" and "intelligence". I'd probably emigrate to Mexico and attempt to live my life in peace without thinking about the subject. I don't have faith in Europeans that they'd treat "racial inferiors" with brotherly love and respect. I suppose that my ideal response would be that scientists would attempt to dig deeper into the findings and pray that they are flawed. If they're not flawed, I have no idea what policy prescriptions I'd advance.

However, this is a hypothetical discussion. There's hardly any evidence that suggests that there's a connection between genetic factors that may be construed as "race" and "intelligence".
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeb Bush likes controversial sociologist Charles Murray's books on: May 03, 2015, 07:40:06 pm
Why am I not surprised that racist apologists like Charles Murray? Roll Eyes

I didn't know you were a fan. Which book of his do you find most interesting?

I'm sick and tired of racists on this forum masquerading as believers in a post-racial consensus where "they don't see color". Charles Murray's focus on IQ scores is unforgivable. It isn't not a mere flaw or a slight negative: Charles Murray played a significant role in resurrecting the grand intellectual project of justifying racism.

Do you realize how demeaning it is when scholars claim that your "race" is objectively "dumber" than another "race", which happens to be their own "race"? Can you fathom what it means for Latinos, Africans and South Asians when racist pseudo-scientists indirectly support eugenics, racial segregation and racial hierarchies as being in accordance with "evolution"?

My ethnic background and my genetic line is suspect. My so-called intelligence is thought of as an "outlier" by Americans; an expression of my lack of "Mexicanness", something that pseudo-scientists like Murray and Nicholas Wade might think is due to my half-white background. Meanwhile, you think that being called a racist is a form of oppression, some expression of a race-based animus on my part. Get over yourself, man. If you think getting called out is uncomfortable, imagine the core of your identity being questioned and demeaned since you were a small child. This is one of the wonderful gifts that Charles Murray has helped bestow upon the world: the gift of racism that is intellectually justified.

If you justify Charles Barron's hatred of white people - not unrelated things about him but the hatred itself - yes, that sounds a hell of a lot like race-based animus.   I am glad relatively few of the racial and ethnic minorities you claim to speak for are as hateful and prejudiced as you are towards people who have different perspectives from themselves. 

Thanks for ignoring most of the body of my post, friend!

The idea that I have some kind of race-based animus is surreal. The vast majority of my friends are white, my father is white, half of my family is white. While I don't agree with most of their views on issues of race, issues that they can't comprehend properly because they stand to benefit from our current racial constructs and subconsciously interpret themselves differently than racial minorities, I don't hate them.

My race-based animus only extends to white people in the context of discussions surrounding race and ethnicity. Although this is a pretty important topic, it's quite minuscule. I'm friends with racists. I look past their hatred and they look past my ethnicity. Does that mean I'm going to respect their perspective or applaud their hate? No.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 159


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines