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. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. All
Some additional thoughts, LEGO.

Do you remember how I’ve always noted in the past that the reason you want me to ‘state my position’ when you’re cornered (without justifying why I should or why, “you’re wrong”, is not an adequate position) is because you need something from me to attack to distract from the flaws in your own arguments?

Well, that’s happening right now.

I listed three major problems with your racial theories earlier, yet you don’t even seem to care that they exist anymore. So on-the-backfoot are you now, that the best you can hope for is a ‘draw’, and so here you are, desperately trying to invent a contradiction where one doesn’t exist so that you can at least leave feeling like both of our positions have problems with them, or, heaven forbid, walk away convincing yourself that the problems with your position are no longer problems simply because you found a contradiction in mine.

Anyway, thank you for proving me right there.

Speaking of this alleged contradiction, here are four things you’ve done so far in your attempts to fabricate it:

1. Ignore the difference between behavioural genetics on the macro level and the micro level.
2. Switch from ‘behavioural genetics specifically’ to ‘genetics in general’ when convenient.
3. Conflate heritability with the influence of genetics on behaviour.
4. Attribute my responses to things you never said at the time.

It’s not looking good for you, is it LEGO?

Not to worry. Only two more weeks of this and then you can slink off having convinced yourself that no one’s watching anymore because the discussion will be hidden by default. Then we case start the whole thing over again on another thread.

Won’t that be fun?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 11 November 2016 9:25:21 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

"Correct, and as I pointed out earlier , in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’, ‘nature' refers to genetics performing a specific role: the influence that it has on behaviour."

Could you state that in plain English? Start off with a sentence which has a subject and a predicate. Does that mean that you agree that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture? Or is it nurture only, because nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance? You can't have it both ways. No matter how much unintelligible blather you post up in "explanation."

AJ wrote

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

Genetics is all about trait heritability, dummy. Genetic trait inheritance occurs in all organisms and within groups of organisms, and includes physical appearance, physical abilities, susceptibility to disease, immunity to disease, IQ, and behaviour. Grizzly bears and African buffaloes proves that your claim that genetic heritability of behaviour can not be common in groups of organisms within species is demonstrably wrong.

AJ wrote

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

"As a general rule", both sides of a debate submit their premises, explain the reasons why their premises are correct with reasoned arguments, and with evidence, and attack each others arguments, evidence, and logic. But you won't do that because you already know that your ideology's logic is bankrupt. All you want o do is prevaricate and stifle debate.

AJ wrote

"I listed three major problems with your racial theories earlier, yet you don’t even seem to care that they exist anymore."

You listed three reasons why nurture trumps genetics. You first claim is that behaviour is a product of genetics and nurture, and then you provide "three reasons" (with no supporting arguments) why it is nurture only.

Your position is still a contradiction.

Either behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, or nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance. You can't have it both ways
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 11 November 2016 6:36:52 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
Once again for the slow, LEGO.

<<Does that mean that you agree that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture?>>

Yes.

<<Or is it nurture only, because nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance?>>

No.

For the fourth time now, my “drowns out” comment was in regards to heritability across large populations, not the influence of genes on behaviour.

<<You can't have it both ways.>>

Of course not. That would be contradictory.

<<Genetics is all about trait heritability, dummy.>>

Not quite. It’s also about the inherited characteristics. In a sleight of hand, you switch between and conflate the two to confuse the situation and pull a swiftie. Here’s an example of you doing just that:

“You acknowledge that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture, then imply that [genetic-derived] behaviour is not heritable in large populations.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331972)

Notice you went from ‘behaviour’ (an inherited *characteristic*) to just heritability in general? Tsk, tsk!

<<Genetic trait inheritance occurs in all organisms and within groups of organisms, and includes ...>>

Correct.

<<Grizzly bears and African buffaloes proves that your claim that genetic heritability of behaviour [cannot] be common in groups of organisms within species is demonstrably wrong.>>

Races are not species. They’re not even subspecies. Apples and oranges. Furthermore, humans all behave surprisingly similar when placed in the same circumstances, given how complex our brains are.

<<"As a general rule", both sides of a debate submit their premises …>>

In a formal debate, yes. But this isn’t a formal debate. I’m just pointing out that there are problems with your racial theories. What I may think beyond that has no relevance to the validity of your arguments.

<<You listed three reasons why nurture trumps genetics.>>

Where? I bet you can’t list them. Just like you can’t tell me the name of this mystery book or what these facts were that you were going to throw in my face.

<<Either behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, or nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance. You can't have it both ways>>

Correct.

Still no links to my quotes, I see.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 11 November 2016 9:14:38 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

"For the fourth time now, my “drowns out” comment was in regards to heritability across large populations, not the influence of genes on behaviour."

"Large populations" of ethnically distinct individuals share common, heritable traits. If individuals within ethnicities can genetically inherit generally common physical appearances, generally common physical attributes, generally common resistance to disease, they can obviously inherit general IQ levels, and genetic proneness to violent behaviour. Both IQ and behaviour are heritable. I have already explained this previously, but since you are hanging onto it like a drowning man clutching a piece of wood, we will go over it again. The study of genetic inheritance across populations is a separate discipline of genetics called "Population Genetics." Here is Wikipedia.

"Population Genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and between populations, and is a part of evolutionary biology. Studies in this branch of biology examine such phenomena as adaptation, speciation, and population structure."

You know that every university text book on Psychology stresses that behavior is a product of nature and nurture, and that applies to everybody. But you hate the fact that behavior and genetics are linked, because that explains why so many dysfunctional ethnicities are so prone to criminal behavior. So you got creative. You acknowledge that genetics and behaviour are linked in individuals, then claim that genetics and behaviour can not be linked in groups of individuals. That is complete BS, and you know it.

AJ tried

"Races are not species. They’re not even subspecies. Apples and oranges. Furthermore, humans all behave surprisingly similar when placed in the same circumstances, given how complex our brains are."

The human race is a species. Different ethnicities of humans equate to sub species within the animal world, and you know it. But like a Creationist denying a truckload of fossils, you will never acknowledge what you already know is the truth. Because your precious, world saving ideology will never concede that some ethnicities are trouble prone because they have generally low intelligence and are genetically much more predisposed to violent behaviour than others.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 12 November 2016 4:17:13 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
Once again, LEGO, you fail to account for the differences in the heritability of, and the influence of environmental factors on, the physical and the behavioural.

<<If individuals within ethnicities can genetically inherit generally common physical … attributes, … resistance to disease, they can obviously inherit general IQ levels, and genetic proneness to violent behaviour.>>

"For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331960)

<<I have already explained this previously, but …>>

Actually, you haven’t. But let’s take a look at what it is that you believe you have already explained…

<<The study of genetic inheritance across populations is a separate discipline of genetics called "Population Genetics.">>

No, they're the same discipline. You even provide a quote explaining just that:

“Population Genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and between populations …” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics)

Sheesh! This one’s right up there with the time you attributed something that I had said, to yourself: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331621

<<You know that every university text book on Psychology stresses that behavior is a product of nature and nurture, and that applies to everybody.>>

That, I do. Mine included.

<<… that explains why so many dysfunctional ethnicities are so prone to criminal behavior.>>

No, it doesn't. You still have those three problems I listed earlier: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332092

<<You acknowledge that genetics and behaviour are linked in individuals…>>

That, I do.

<<… then claim that genetics and behaviour [cannot] be linked in groups of individuals.>>

“More that [behaviour’s] polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331975)

<<Different ethnicities of humans equate to sub species within the animal world …>>

Nope. Subspecies can’t always breed successfully and, unlike with races, a member of one subspecies can never be more closely related to an individual in a different subspecies than they are to another individual within their own.

Try again, LEGO.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 12 November 2016 6:29:13 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
Actually, LEGO, I will note that population genetics is slightly different to the notion of heritability of traits across large populations. The former deals more with genetic drift rather than heredity. So it’s not quite as bad as the time you attributed my pointing out that African Americans, at the rate their IQs are rising, will be smarter than whites in a few decades, if the trend continues. I’ll take that part back.

But that doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. The fact remains that the influence that environmental factors have, are far greater effect on behaviour and intelligence than they are on physical attributes, and this is what you are currently trying to skirt around. Then there’s the fact that behaviour and intelligence are controlled by a number of genes (and combinations thereof) that is far greater than the number of genes that determine individual physical attributes.

So, isolated or not, you’re still pushing poo uphill trying to claim that certain behaviours can be more pronounced in one group than they are in another because of shared genetic traits. The first of the three problems with your racial theories would be a good starting point (i.e. control for environmental factors). Next, I would suggest that you demonstrate how isolation overcomes the other two of the three factors I mentioned earlier:

1. The sheer number of genes (and combinations thereof) influencing behaviour and intelligence. and;
2. Genetic variability.

Until you’ve done the above, you have no argument. So, you see, you can distract all you like with supposed contradictions on my behalf, but, inevitably, we will always return to the flaws in your arguments.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 12 November 2016 7:23:44 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. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. All

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