The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Debate over Adler shotgun is emotional and ill-informed > Comments

Debate over Adler shotgun is emotional and ill-informed : Comments

By Brendan O'Reilly, published 24/10/2016

Along with most other shooters, however, I also believe that pump action shotguns of up to five rounds magazine capacity should never have been banned.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All
AJ wrote

"Which is why you’re panicking."

Actually, I am sitting here with a big grin on my face, for two reasons. I have just heard that Trump is winning, and I have got you right where I want you. I have an opponent who's logic is demonstrably bankrupt, who's stated positions are contradictory, and who refuses to even acknowledge his contradictions. Checkmate.

Once more for the dummies.

You admit that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture. Then you say that nurture "drowns out" genetics. If nurture "drowns out" genetics, then the role that genetics plays in behaviour is insignificant. Therefore, you position must be, that behaviour is a product of nurture only.

Now, you can not claim that behaviour is a product of nurture and nature, and then claim that it is a product of nurture only. That is a contradiction. You definitely have a credibility problem here, AJ.

AJ wrote

"Oh, that’s okay. They serve their purpose just being there, for two reasons: they demonstrate that you won’t read something if it contradicts your beliefs, and that only one of us has evidence for their position"

I read an entire book by an author who shares your strange worldview and peculiar logic. He did not bother to address the scientific reasons why crime and genetics are linked. His position was an entirely moral one. He said that the link must not exist, and nobody should even look for one if it did. Now, I asked you to provide evidence to support your position that nurture "drowns out" genetics, and you wrote.

“... polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, [that] drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable[, and] 'genetic variability' …”

That is not an argument, AJ, it is simply an unsupported statement.

AJ wrote "Speaking of which, here are those articles again."

Then read them, AJ, and internalise them. Then use them to provide a reasoned argument to support your odd beliefs. That would be a lot better than the laughable contradiction you are offering at the moment.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 9 November 2016 4:37:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still no contradiction, LEGO.

<<You admit that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture.>>

“Nature”, in this context, implies genetics performing a specific role. Now, in a sleight of hand, you are attempting to broaden it to genetics in general.

“Admit”, as if it were done reluctantly. Ding!

<<Then you say that nurture "drowns out" genetics.>>

No, not genetics in general. There are still physical differences (as opposed to behavioural).

You see what you did there? Very dishonest.

<<If nurture "drowns out" genetics, then the role that genetics plays in behaviour is insignificant. Therefore, you position must be, that behaviour is a product of nurture only.>>

Not on an individual level. Again, you’re confusing genetic influence with heritability.

<<Now, you [cannot] claim that behaviour is a product of nurture and nature, and then claim that it is a product of nurture only.>>

I know, and I haven’t. See above.

<<I read an entire book by an author who … did not bother to address the scientific reasons why crime and genetics are linked. His position was an entirely moral one.>>

Why would you bother reading it then? That’s ridiculous. Morality has no more to do with how genes function than it has to do with evolution (as creationists would claim).

<<He said that the link must not exist …>>

What an idiot. Could you tell me what the book was, or who the author was? I bet you can't.

<<That is not an argument, AJ, it is simply an unsupported statement.>>

Oh, but you didn’t want to address it when it was in the form of an argument:

“… polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability), which applies to all heritable traits to varying degrees." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331975)

All you did was skew what I had said to produce a contradiction that doesn’t exist.

<<Then read [the articles], AJ, and internalise them. Then use them to provide a reasoned argument …>>

I have, and I did.

Instances of emotive language: 15
Fallacies: 13
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 10 November 2016 7:12:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ wrote

"Still no contradiction, LEGO."

How do you do it, AJ? How do you come right out and say that black is white? You can lie to me, you can lie to the audience, but when you lie to yourself and submit an "explanation" which you, yourself know is complete BS, then you have no business being in a university studying to be a scientist.

AJ gets creative

"“Nature”, in this context, implies genetics performing a specific role. Now, in a sleight of hand, you are attempting to broaden it to genetics in general."

I am using genetics in the way that any person who completed secondary school can easily understand it. That includes you.

AJ delves into the world of the bizarre.

"No, not genetics in general. There are still physical differences (as opposed to behavioural)."

"Not on an individual level. Again, you’re confusing genetic influence with heritability."

Look dummy, I don't know what you think you are doing here, other than proving to every interested reader that you are a wild eyed ideologue who will dream up any blathering rubbish to deny your glaring contradiction. But if you want to do make an idiot of yourself, go right ahead. As a matter of fact, it even helps me. Those who think that anti racists are the smart ones are getting a reality check.

You can muddy the waters, AJ, erect smokescreens, toss red herrings, and try to baffle me with bullshiit. But you are not going to admit that genetics is a significant factor in behaviour, then claim that it is not, and then say that there is no contradiction in what you are saying.

Checkmate.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 10 November 2016 3:46:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice dodge there, LEGO.

<<I am using genetics in the way that any person who completed secondary school can easily understand it.>>

I pointed out that we were discussing “nature” (in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’) when you deceitfully shifted to the broader notion of “genetics” to fabricate an alleged contradiction on my behalf. So telling me that you are, “using genetics in the way that any person who completed secondary school can easily understand it”, doesn’t address my point or absolve you of your wrongdoing. Nor does it clarify what you mean by “genetics”, for that matter.

I assume you’re not going to clarify what you mean by “genetics” either, just as you refused to clarify what you meant by “works”.

<<Look dummy, I don't know what you think you are doing here, other than proving to every interested reader that you are a [wild-eyed] ideologue who will dream up any blathering rubbish to deny your glaring contradiction. But if you want to do make an idiot of yourself, go right ahead.>>

Ah, the ad hominem. You know, LEGO, for all your faults, that’s one I never expected from you. That makes fourteen fallacies now.

<<… you are not going to admit that genetics is a significant factor in behaviour, then claim that it is not, and then say that there is no contradiction in what you are saying.>>

Oh, of course. I wouldn’t dream of it! And if you ever spot me doing that, just point it out and I’ll retract what I said.

<<Checkmate.>>

That’s the way, LEGO. Provide no evidence for your assertions, have a dummy spit, and then run off declaring “checkmate”.

Classy.

I note with interest that you couldn’t name that book, just as I had predicted. Here are some other challenges you’ve evaded:

1. You can't explain how you've controlled for environmental factors, while refusing to acknowledge that you haven't.
2. You haven’t overcome your chicken-and-egg problem regarding low SES and intelligence.
3. You can't explain where common sense (as opposed to intelligence) fits into your racial theories.

Fallacies: 14
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 10 November 2016 4:53:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ wrote

"I pointed out that we were discussing “nature” (in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’) when you deceitfully shifted to the broader notion of “genetics” to fabricate an alleged contradiction on my behalf."

Did I? When asked by me " Exactly what do you mean by "nature"? Is the "nature" you are talking about "genetics"?" Your answer

AJ wrote

Yes, and physiology. That sort of thing.

Now you are contradicting yourself again. You have painted yourself into a corner and there is no way out.

AJ wrote

"Oh, of course. I wouldn’t dream of it! And if you ever spot me doing that, just point it out and I’ll retract what I said."

You did "dream it", AJ. Go ahead and "retract", but you will still have to explain what you are talking about. OK. Lets look at how your dreams have checkmated you.

You first dreamed that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.

AJ wrote

"Two factors help shape our mentality - nature and nurture - and the different combinations of the two have a multiplying effect on who we are as individuals."

You agreed that by "Nature" you meant genetics. Then came more dreamy contradictions.

AJ wrote

"More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable."

When I asked you if your position was that genetic factors are insignificant to environmental factors, your dreamy reply was.

AJ wrote

"Yes, because that’s what all the research suggests."

You dreamily agreed that genetics and crime are linked.

AJ wrote

"Genetics and crime are linked, and the link is very strong."

Then you dreamily contradicted yourself again. When I said to you that crime and genetics are linked, your reply.

AJ wrote

"No, it’s not, and you haven’t yet addressed my rebuttal."

Summarising your dreamy position.

Genetics and crime are linked, but they are not linked. Behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture. But nurture "drowns out" genetics to "insignificance", so behaviour must be entirely a product of nurture.

Checkmate. You must be dreaming.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 11 November 2016 5:05:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, you did, LEGO.

<<Did I? When asked by me " Exactly what do you mean by "nature"? Is the "nature" you are talking about "genetics"?" Your answer …>>

Correct, and as I pointed out earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332069), in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’, ‘nature' refers to genetics performing a specific role: the influence that it has on behaviour. (http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html)

My accusation of dishonesty remains. At least one of us can clarify what they mean, though.

<<Lets look at how your dreams have checkmated you.>>

This’ll be fun.

<<You first [acknowledged] that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.>>

And have continued to do so, yes.

<<You agreed that by "Nature" you meant genetics.>>

Ultimately, yes.

<<Then [wrote:] "More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable.">>

Across large populations. Once again, you’re confusing genetic influence with heritability, and ignoring the differences between the macro and micro levels.

<<When I asked you if your position was that genetic factors are insignificant to environmental factors, your dreamy reply was[: "Yes, because that’s what all the research suggests.">>

No, that was said in regards to the genetic influence of behaviour amongst races. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331731)

Incidentally, as a general rule, you don’t use quotation marks or say “you wrote” when paraphrasing.

<<You … agreed that genetics and crime are linked.>>

Correct.

<<Then you dreamily contradicted yourself again. When I said to you that crime and genetics are linked, your reply [was] … "No, it’s not, and you haven’t yet addressed my rebuttal.">>

“The, “No, it’s not”, was in [regards to the] differing incarceration rates between the sexes being a good analogy for differing incarceration rates between races. It wasn't a denial that genetics plays a role.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331748)

That's the second time you've made that "mistake".

<<Checkmate.>>

Apparently not. All you did was attribute my responses to things you didn't say or ask at the time. I think it’s high time you started accompanying your quotes with links.

Fat chance, eh? You couldn’t try to pull one over me if you did.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 11 November 2016 6:39:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy