To Mahatma Sitting Duck.

Just for the record, I do listen to the radio and much prefer books to TV. I have read Jared Diamond’s book “Guns, Germs and Steel” and since there was nothing in that book which related to comparisons between race and intelligence, I gather that is more than you have done.

I have given a reasoned argument why I think that there are differences in the personalities, intelligence and physical attributes of different races. Your position is that all races are genetically identical in every way except some undeniable physical ones. I have supported my premise. When will you stop being just a cowardly critic and support your own premise with a reasoned argument?

All you can do is muddy the water by saying that “The Bell Curve” was debunked by another academic.

You will be pleased to know that I did read an opposing view in “The War against Children” by US author Peter R. Breggin. Peter Breggin is vehemently opposed to any notion that race or criminality is in any way linked. Unfortunately for Peter, he got a little indiscreet. Presumably because he thought that he was preaching to the converted and such people accept without question whatever he writes. In his book, he brags about his success in helping the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) to stop the scientists responsible for the historic Humane Genome Project from initiating a scientific convention entitled “Genetic Factors in Crime.” The NAACP lobbied US congress and demanded that any scientist who submits any information should have any government reserach funding withdrawn from them. Seems they did not want to hear what the scientists had to say.

A similar scientific convention was held in London which excluded both the press and the public. One suspects that what the geneticists obviously already know might be a little topical?

Throughout human history, scientists have had the unenviable task of telling people information which they did not want to know, and which violated the sanctity of prevailing dogma. Looks like it is about to happen yet again.

And thank you, All-, for a civilized and readable reply.

There are still some disconnects though.

>>the Utopia you aspire would be worth the venture<<

I thought I had put these cards on the table too, when I asserted "[h]uman beings are not, and can never be, perfect". Surely, a world of imperfect beings cannot by definition be Utopian?

One of the aspects of twentyfirst century civilization that concerns me is that we ("Western" society") have reached a point, financially and intellectually, where some folk actually believe that some form of Utopia is achievable. This tends to lead to the "if only we didn't have all these people around who think differently from us" attitude, and can move easily and quickly from there to "it shouldn't be too difficult, if we all get together, to send them away."

In between these two points is the rabble-rouser, who uses the "they are different" routine, with a couple of riffs from biology, history and statistics, to foment the "we'd be better off without them" movement.

It isn't difficult. It happened in 1930s England, as well as other parts of Europe, and is a singularly unpleasant state of affairs. The only difference that I can see between the Mosleys of the last century and the Frasers of this, is that the former worked on the discomfort of being poor (and out of work), while the latter exploits the innate greed of the comfortably off to want to improve their own position at the expense of others.

Fascinating reading list, by the way. I'm a bit too busy right now to do it justice, but thanks for selecting.

To MattewS et el

And no response to me – as usual on these pages.

The Australian published news from ID-process in the States where it was disclosed that what any not-full-idiot understood already: ID was a cheating by a pure creationalism some cosmetically changed to avoid US legislation prohibiting teaching GOD DEEDS in schools.

That is what all about in this discussion of WHITE AUSTRALIA, which is a quintessence of everything seemingly new and different as covered of MULTICULTURALISM as it is

Arguing with redneck is reminiscent of the 'black knight' scene in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' - he doesn't seem to realise when his argument has had its legs chopped off.

"Your position is that all races are genetically identical in every way except some undeniable physical ones".

When did I write that? My argument is that human 'races', when defined in any rigorous way, are next to useless in explaining human behaviour. Additionally, there is more genetic variation within your so-called races than between them, so your genetic argument falls flat.

Glad to hear you've read 'Guns, Germs and Steel', but it seems that you paid as much attention to its central premise as you did to the almost complete absence of 'race' per se as a variable in 'The Bell Curve'. Diamond's point - and he wrote the book partially in response to the idiotic racist reception to 'The Bell Curve' - was that differences in technological sophistication between various human groups (or so-called 'races') are the result of environmental factors (e.g. terrain or the availability of natural resources) rather than differential intelligence.

Finally, it wasn't "one academic" who debunked 'The Bell Curve' - there have been dozens. For a while there in the mid-90s it was nigh on impossible to read an edition of any peer-reviewed social science journal that didn't feature at least one article devoted to refuting Murray & Herrnstein's odious book.

Science is good Mahatma, it works in all directions, even down to what brand of Cigarettes from a suspect's DNA Print. But it can not determine Culture. Well, Maybe.This suspect is a White male
http://www.dnaprint.com/welcome/press/press_recent/2005/1003/DNAG-NAPA.pdf

To Mahatma Sitting Duck.

When did you write it?

That's the problem, Ducky. Hey, I know that I am just a low educated redneck, but I didn't just walk in from the sheep paddock, y'know. I know when somebody is pissing on my leg and telling me that it is raining.

Thank you for admitting that you have made no statement which presents a position that you are prepared to defend. I have not figured out yet if you are being deliberately deceitful or whether your dishonest position has been arrived at by pure unconscious instinct.

The premise that I am prepared to argue and defend is, that there are significant differences in intelligence, physical ability and physical characteristics between the races. If you are arguing against me then you must hold the opposite view. If this is not your position, then state exactly what is your position now. Put forward a premise that you are prepared to defend.

Your position so far has been that of the cowardly critic who finds fault in other people’s premises but who studiously avoids even mentioning his own position. What are you afraid of? Do I detect that you, yourself, know that your belief that all races are equal in every way except physical characteristics can not be substantiated at all? You know that it is based upon nothing more than ideological wishful thinking and you have neither any data nor even a reasoned argument that could back it up.

So, at any cost you simply keep attacking my premise and demanding answers from me, because the last thing that you want is for me to turn the argument around and make you articulate a view that is open to criticism. That is your weakest link and you can bet that I will keep sawing away at it.

State your position now or admit that you are beaten.