Well it's nice to see the racial discrimination laws put in their proper historical context, at least Mr Wertheim doesn't deny Zionist terrorism or try to suggest that the diaspora wasn't raising funds for violent and at the time illegal action in Palestine.
It's refreshing to see a clear statement of the genesis and intent of these regulations, the HR and vilification regime was enacted specifically for the purpose of insulating Jewish people against criticism and the Jewish community against scrutiny or oversight.

Actually I should clarify that post because I was interrupted and had to leave the room, let me suggest that Jewish activists and their supporters are the proprietors of the HR and Anti discrimination regime and that Jewish groups like the ADC of B'nai Brith and others function as "committees of public vigilance", collecting information on other Australians for their own use and to be passed to law enforcement if they see fit. To look at it another way Jewish groups and individuals are also accused of rent seeking and profiteering from HR regimes, both here and overseas, if that's offensive or makes people uncomfortable then let's discuss and get into specifics.

There's way more racism among the non-white, non-europeans.

Individual do you mean "Racism" or just ethnocentrism? Ethnocentrism is a good thing and beneficial to a multi racial society. "Racism" on the other hand is a concept invented by Jewish activist Leon Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronshtein) to identify classes of people in Russian society for his description of "Peculiarities of Russian development".
Since Australia has no peasantry, no state religion and no absolute monarchy the word "Racist" has no context in our society.
I assume you're coming from the third position, the more realistic perception of race relations, so:
"Racism" in Australia today is a byword for boorishness and a lack of what the wealthy inner urban classes would term "sophistication", "Racism" is identified with the provincial or outer suburban poor, which paradoxically enough today includes most non European colonists.
"Racism" in 2013 therefore is in itself a class distinction, poor and backward people are "Racist", rich people who live in the city are "Anti Racist".
Non European colonists are commonly seen as "racist" by other poor people who think that they are a little bit better than their neighbours in the outer suburbs and provinces.
You can understand also why the rich, inner suburban Jewish population stands out in this area, especially after the way they pummeled some fairly feckless and quite sad individuals for "AntiSemitism". Loudmouth fool and homeless crank Brendan O'Connell is still in jail for upsetting two young Jewish men who would have probably been applauded by all if they'd just given him a smack in the mouth and walked off instead of crushing him like a bug and having him jailed.

"As there was no law against group libel he had no alternative but to find against her"

Then indeed why isn't there a law against group libel?
Why a special case for racial groups as opposed to other aggregates of people?

This smells of politics - not of justice!

"Making Aliyah" is a term for snatching somebody's home territory as self-styled Übermenschen "born to rule".

Interesting history, but how relevant is this to current discussion? There is clearly a case for laws against racial vilification and /or hatred especially, if it can be shown that there is associated incitement to violence. I am not a lawyer, but does not English common law provide a remedy in this respect.

I understand from previous postings on this site that the Weimer Republic had such laws. Where is the evidence that laws and the courts are able to suppress a malevolent mind such as Adolph Hitler, who was backed up by an army of thugs (brown shirts). The German legal system could not prevent an atrocious event such as Kristallnacht.

I recall a press report that one of the complainants in the Bolt case said words to the effect that the court action was designed to shut Andrew up. In that respect the case was a great success. Of course the findings can only apply to Mr Bolt. Incidentally the complaints were themselves no shrinking violets and capable of insulting opponents; remember the “sex with a horse” story.

Ok let there be protection in law against vilification, but the judicial decision threshold must be more stringent then is now the case. It is not good enough to rely on the prejudices of left wing lawyers and activist judges. The criteria must be those of the general community, the “reasonable man’ and always decided by a jury.

Thank you. Paul Wertheim, for confirming my suspicion that the Jews were behind multiculturalism and making racial vilification illegal. As the Bolt incident clearly demonstrated, Making racial vilification illegal can mean almost anything, and it is a wonderful way to deny freedom of speech and to stifle any criticism of multiculturalism. This of course initially benefitted the Jews ( you shot yourself in the foot when it also created Muslim immigration into Australia) and did not benefit the Australian people at all.

When Jews use their influence to enact laws in the countries which host them to benefit themselves and to deliberately dilute the host populations of the countries they inhabit, they can hardly complain when the host people begin to dislike them.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. There are always solid motivations for bad laws if one simply ignores the negative consequences.

Racial vilification is certainly undesirable, but limitations on free speech is more so.

Shadow Minister let's not be hasty in assuming there's evidence of good intentions behind the Australian HR laws.
Freedom of speech is important for people who want to use a set of supernatural beliefs in approaching race relations, that is to say if you want to use fiction or allegory as the main teaching aids of your credo you need to be able to make up stories and exaggerate without restraint.
Peter Wertheim uses several of these devices in his article, the holocaust, White xenophobia, the pre 1950's "monoculture" etc, if he was required by law or social convention to only use demonstrable examples to make his point he'd be at a loss without the backing of the anti vilification laws.
The people who style themselves "Race Realists" don't have freedom of speech guaranteed by law so they have to be scrupulous in footnoting everything they say and write as well as provide tedious, hair splittingly detailed data. That's why nobody reads their articles or internet posts, they're too "hard" and contain too many links and big words, we see it on OLO all the time, "Give me examples of racial differences in brain morphology?" "OK here's 20 links supporting my point", "Wall of text! I'm not reading all that!".
Truthfulness, historical accuracy and logic are therefore foiled by racial vilification laws because a selected repertoire of myth, allegory and outright falsehoods are protected as free speech.
You'll notice that when Andrew Bolt made unverifiable claims about some Aboriginals he was set upon by the Jewish human rights establishment? So his claims were untrue yet Mr Wertheim is making broadly similar assertions about White skin privilege and it's alleged misuses but will suffer no consequences beyond a few snarky posts in the comments section. Even if you or someone else did try to press the matter and make a complaint do you think that the proprietors of the HR regime would allow one of their senior Jewish advisors to be tried and be forced to back his allegations of historical White "Racism" in court? It is to laugh.

Might I make a further remark about the tone of Mr Wertheim's article?
The Immigration Restriction act was a completely non violent means of regulating the ethnic mix of Australian society. Restricting entry to certain people on the basis of race does no harm to anyone, contrast that with the formation of the state of Israel, which was achieved via a war, massacres, mass detention of civilians and defiance of most every international standard of conduct including the Geneva conventions on armed conflict.
Who was right and who was wrong in this episode? Is it just possible that these awful "racist" commentators of the late 1940's were intelligent, well informed people who could see a little bit into the future and predict what would happen in Palestine in the succeeding years?

I've just run across something that fleshes out what Jay of Melbourne was describing in his post at 11:49:51 AM today. We've all seen it (the name David Singer comes to mind). Google "Gish gallop" or just click http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Yuyutsu asks why there can be race libel when there can't be group libel. The difference embodies what's so wrong about racism - a libel that labels people, usually in a derogatory way and often in a self-hating way, or in a self-aggrandising way, on the basis of genetic accident of birth. That's what's wrong in saying "we" stole the natives' land or "the Americans" are responsible for slavery. It's also what's wrong about conflating "the Jews" with criminals who "make Aaliya" or claim to be "men born to rule". We Australians didn't introduce female franchise: those who did it are dead. I'm not proud to be Australian, just jolly thankful to be, thankful for those who had a right to be proud of their role in building Australian liberty and in defending it back when that's what soldiers did.

Our culture is our doing, our forebears are not.

amazing how quick we are to judge previous generations especially seen we have such a vile foul mouth generation who think they are so superior to those who laboured to give them freedoms.

Emperor Julian,
That's a reasonable outlook but the problem is that self styled Anti Racists aren't reasonable or sincere people, arguing with them is pointless, heck expecting them to read any supporting material for views contrary to their own is impossible.
The likes of Mr Wertheim are never going to let go of their allegories and historical revisionism, believe me you get the same pitiful level of discourse from educated Anti Semites on Stormfront.
From the same pool of freely available scientific information you get two completely contradictory viewpoints Philo Semitism and Anti Semitism, Holocaust Believers and Holocaust deniers, it's a literally pointless exercise to try and reason with any of them, I know, I've tried for nigh on eight years. Look at David Irving or Fritjof Meyer, I don't think they have too many supporters among either camp because they delve into shades of grey and propose numbers between zero and six million and ask who knew what and when?
It'd be great if both sides could move on and focus on the here and now but since they're dividing beneath two aspects of the same mythos we can only hope that as the events of the 20th century fade from living memory we'll get some peace.

......and that generation of ancestors who Emperor Julian despises and is so ashamed of was of course white, runner. Then Emperor Julian claims he is not a racist and racism is just awful.

Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

I've tried without success to get at what Lego is on about. Where has he found "shame" about the previous generations who built Australian liberty and and gave their lives defending it - even "so despising" them - while consumed with gratitude and admiration for what the heroes of yesteryear did to uphold liberty and decency? My claim is merely that I have no right to take pride in it, it's their right not mine or that of anyone else who was not around to take a role.

Only racists would hold that anyone is entitled to take pride, or wear shame, for what other people did - never mind about their race or skin colour. The most we can do is admire and support and emulate actions and thoughts which seek liberation of human beings, and condemn thoughts and actions which promote or tolerate enslavement. And to admire or condemn thoughts and actions according to whether they are liberating or enslaving is to admire or condemn their actual authors as individuals, not as standard-bearers for this or that race.

Emperor Julian,
You be careful up on that fence young man! :)
The author has spoken "as a Jew" and he presents himself as a spokesperson for Australian Jewry and then makes assertions about White Australians supposedly to give the reader a context for the actions of long deceased members of his community.
There's no value in Whites being the bigger man and biting their tongues every time a person of another race has something to say, that's the typical baby boomer cowardice that's leading us down the same path to the failed multicultural experiments in Europe.
If Peter Wertheim is speaking as Jew, I'm replying as a White man, if he's presenting his information as a citizen, a humanitarian or something else then that's how he should be treated. If Mr Wertheim, as a Jew is speculating about the mindset of prior generations of my people I might as well indulge in some speculation of my own because as I've shown on many occasions facts are only part of Anti Racism insomuch as they might tend to support the body of it's narrative, which is a collection of myths and allegories.
It seems to be part of the nature of Australian White people that they retreat from serious discussions and aspire to neutrality, as you've done in two posts, there's nothing bad about inter racial discussions or even in rivalry between ethnic groups. I'm not an angry person, nor am I cynical or close minded,I'd be overjoyed if Mr Wertheim would give us a few paragraphs in reply to our comments, just don't bother trying to maintain decorum if he does.

The author completed his article with a lie in the very last line;

These are the laws the present government now seeks to repeal.

My understanding is the government is to amend just one clause.
That is hardly the same and is so different that it could only be deliberately misleading.

Jay, by addressing himself as a Jew speaking for "the Jews" Mr Wertheim was fitting the racist model - defining people by their genetics - making him an enemy of all people including non-racist Jews. This would be true even if he hadn't indulged in racist denigration of (non-Jewish) "white" Australians. But I wasn't addressing him I was trying to address Lego's "Gish gallop". I don't sit on any fence between bad guys and good guys but firmly against bad guys. That is a stand racism cops out of, instead demanding that people close ranks with bad guys who are of the "right" race. As Mr Wertheim does, along with the voices for a "white" Australia. I'm more picky about who I close ranks with.

I am a racist, emperor Julian, and I take offence at your implication that there is something wrong with my belief system. You may be in breach of Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act if you are condemning, vilifying, prejudging, labelling and stereotyping a group of people who identify themselves as "racists." After all, what defines a Jew or a Muslim is primarily their belief system, not necessarily their race. And if it is racist to collectively criticise Jews and Muslims who are identified by their belief systems, it must therefore be racist to collectively criticise racists who are also identified by their belief system.

If you were to claim that Jews and Muslims are different because their belief system is recognised as a religion, therefore they get a free pass, I will then accuse you of Discrimination. All belief systems must be equal, according to the Socialist humanitarian worldview.

If I were to say that the Chinese are hardworking, or that the Italians have a flair for design, or that the French are sophisticated, you would not criticise me for saying nice things about them. But if I were to make negative generalisations about any ethnicities or nationalities, you would say that this is racism and absolutely wrong.

To summarise, according to your mindset, making positive generalisations about groups of people is OK but making negative generalisations is not OK.

Such a position is a double standard and it is intellectually unsupportable. No group of people is beyond collective praise or criticism

Spot on Lego and you have touched the reason for the proposed amendment.
Just because you are offended by something someone said, be it true or
false should be OK, but at present you cannot say something that offends.

eg all Nazis are racial murderers.

That will offend someone who is a member of the Nazi party and they
could have you up in court as the law now stands.

Andrew Bolt got into court because he said some aborigines could choose
to be aboriginal or Caucasian and that some of them might choose the
most financially beneficial option.

That offended some with part aboriginal antecedents.
So they took him to court.

Surely that is neither fair or supportable.
That is what the proposed para 18c amendment is to fix.

<<at present you cannot say something that offends>>

But there does seem to be a high degree of selectivity with regard to which cry of offense is heard!

"AN Aboriginal girl who kicked a woman and called her a 'white slut' did not engage in racial vilification because the slur was common street language."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/street-language-ruled-not-vilification/story-e6frg6nf-1111112215330

I rather doubt that a non-"minority" individual would get the same degree of fawning sympathy that a certain footballer received earlier in the year.

No of course not SPQR, it is just that if you are white, male over 50
then you are fair game for all the trendy lefties to have a stab at you.
Hasn't anyone realised why they cannot get male primary school teachers ?
It is all part of the same discriminatory trend ?
Then if the trendy lefties are female then duck.
I would love someone to take a poll of all primary school teachers to
see just where they stand in that spectrum.
Frankly I think they are indoctrinating the children and not just in
global warming either.

Things I have heard my grandchildren say suggest they are being
politically indoctrinated also. Nothing that you can put a hard finger onto,,, but:

How about the Muslim protestors in that Muslim riot in Sydney who were holding up signs saying "Behead those Who Insult Islam"?

That self evidently crossed the border of free speech as it was a clear "incitement to violence". But why were these people who were holding up these signs, and thereby clearly breaking the law, not arrested, charged and convicted? And where were the so called "Human rights" lobby who prosecute people like Henry Bolt for writing newspaper columns "offending" minorities, when a clearly violent minority was making a self evident violent threat at the majority?

There is a clear double standard here. Minorities can do what they like, even threaten violence towards ordinary Australians, but even respected journalists who questions the merits of racial privileges for minorities get jumped on from a great height.

Lego and Bazz are kicking open doors in what is starting to shape up as a joint Gish Gallop.
Offensive words - should be within the law.
Threatening words - should be illegal if and only if the manner of their delivery is shown to constitute a threat.
Libellous words - generally not criminal but can be actionable in civil law if shown to be damaging and untrue or irrelevant.

Emporor Julianne, (why can't lefties think up simple, non pretentious names) you have made the comment that racism is wrong. I have been sticking it to you in order to challenge you on that premise. So far, all you have done is accuse me of debating dishonestly.

Whenever you get the courage to form a reasoned argument supporting your claim, please let me know and it will be keyboards at twenty paces.

As for debating dishonestly, 15 years on internet debate sites have taught me several dishonest debating tricks used by people with your mindset. The primary one is "Always imply, but when challenged, deny." The best example of that is to always imply that the endemic and self evident dysfunctions of certain ethnicities is always the fault of white people, then deny that you are racist towards white people.

Next is the clear double standard. White people must always maintain the highest levels of probity while dysfunctional ethnicities always get a free pass. White imperialism is bad, but don't mention Muslim imperialism, black African imperialism, Indonesian imperialism, Aztec and Mayan imperialism, Persian imperialism, native American imperialism, or Chinese imperialism.

Finally comes the ploys of refusing to recognise self evident reality or claiming that black is somehow white.

But regardless of what tactic you use, anytime you want to cross swords with me on racism, the gauntlet is thrown.

That was an interesting and informative article. How unfortunate the last line was completely misleading. The Abbott government is not seeking to repeal the Racial Discrimination Act but to remove section 18c (aka the Bolt clause) as it is poorly worded and open to very broad interpretations. What rarely gets mentioned is that the Racial Hatred Act 1995 will be untouched and covers all it needs to.

To Lego (and to anyone who takes on board his defence of racism): I find I need to repeat: "I don't sit on any fence between bad guys and good guys but firmly against bad guys. That is a stand racism cops out of, instead demanding that people close ranks with bad guys who are of the "right" race. As Mr Wertheim does, along with the voices for a "white" Australia. I'm more picky about who I close ranks with."

And this is my political reason (along with a great majority of Australians) for rejecting racism - that racism is an implied demand that one close ranks with bad guys on the ground that they share one's supposed racial (genetic) origins. It's the closing of ranks on ethnic grounds that got Germany and Japan being justly reduced to rubble in the 1940s and the criminal Sieg heiling and Banzai-ing inhabitants taking a couple of generations to live down the disgrace to which their racist choice of sides led them.

I say political because of the connection between political thought and moral choice in the meaning of "ought".

Politics should nevertheless not get in the way of factual truth. As minotour points out, the Abbott government is exploring rewriting of one section (plus a consequent section) of the Crimespeak Act, not repealing the Act.

The truth of the matter is that some races are vile. It matters not if this is genetic, cultural, or circumstantial, the truth remains, some are vile.

How can any be guilty of vilifying that which is vile?

To Emperor Julian.

Your premise is, that racism caused WW2, therefore racism must be unspeakably evil. The people who advocate racism as a self evident reality must be therefore be "bad', while the people who oppose racism are "good."

Could I suggest that this equates with saying that Hiroshima and Human Induced Global Warming was caused by "science and technology", and therefore science and technology must be unspeakably evil? People who advocate science and technology as self evident reality are "bad", while people who oppose science are "good."

As a former non racist like your good self, I was struck by the fact that the most common explanation for minority dysfunction by "anti racists" was racist in itself. This was, of course, the "blame the white guy for everything" excuse. No matter what subject we were dealing with when talking about minority dysfunction, endemic drug use, unemployment, crime rates, welfare dependency, lack of educational attainment, health problems, or economic success, the anti racist lobby could always find a way to blame my race, with a bit of judicious pushing and shoving of the facts.

Faced with two racist explanations for minority dysfunction, my approach was to objectively ascertain through reasoned logic which racist explanation was the most valid. My conclusion was to reject the "blame the white guy for everything" racist philosophy while still conceding some validity to this explanation in certain circumstances. My conclusion accepted that human behaviour is a product of both nature and nurture. Cultural values are crucial in understanding why some ethnicities behave in certain ways and why others do not, and so is genetics. If we can recognise that certain breeds of dogs are not real smart and that certain breeds of dogs are extremely violent, by what reasoned logic could you conclude that making the same recognition about human breeds is "evil"?

Finally, the very idea that people must be legally prevented for speaking or writing about any subject which is in opposition to the current orthodoxy is something that we as an advanced civilisation began to reject 400 years ago during the Enlightenment

Lego, there has to be a modification to what you are stating about race.
DNA within some races is modified by culture which complicates your simplification.
The point is illustrated by the custom of marrying cousins in the Arab
races and to other Islamic races, eg South Asian.

The resultant genetic problems have been reported on by the NSW health
dept to parliament and the Midlands Health Service to the House of Commons.

A very delicate subject no doubt, but does explain some behaviours.

In response to Lego I think I've been Gish galloped into silence, having made more than four responses, but I'll take a punt.

#1:I have not blamed racism for causing the war. What it did (as I pointed out quite clearly) was to ENABLE the war by providing a false ground (race) for closing ranks with bad guys as Germans and Japs.

#2: False analogy. Science and technology is about exploring reality. Racism is about ducking it. Different animals.

#3#4: Correct up to a point, but only sentimental racists blame the so-called "white" race for the self-inflicted dysfunction of minorities. The answer to minority dysfunction is to require individuals to shape up. This means among other things to require them to conform to universal moral standards - including not brawling over racial differences, respecting privacy, not demanding public expenditure to accommodate minority "cultures", upholding the freedoms hard-won in the Enlightenment and defended from the Axis.

#5: Who is it wants laws against Crimethink? I for one would abolish all racial and religious vilification laws and replace them with strict application of libel laws holding sweeping statements about an ethnic group liable for damages to all individuals locked in the group by genetics (thus covered) if the utterance (1) can be shown to damage the individuals personally AND (2) can't be shown to be true.

I notice the secret to Lego’s Gish gallops is straw men – seems to find “leftie-”ism (i.e. skewed beliefs), or allegations of “whites” being to blame for non-“white” dysfunction, or invented talk about “evil”, being more comfortable to rebut than actual reasoned discourse. Racism is not evil, but it is a key weapon in the armoury of evil.

[Great book: "War Against the Weak" - Edwin Black (Amazon, Google)]

Australia is with out words, the last island where all can come with a numbers in mind.....you know me...fair and white to the hills...with nine different bloods types from all over the world.

So...whats your point:)....The world as one is my dream....and in the end...your all the same ape...

Get rid of religion, and you will move forward.

Planet3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zurVNlzrCFwhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85q6BOnwIAQ

I wonder where pat is?

Planet3

To Julian.

Point one. You claim that you do not blame racism for WW2, it just ENABLED it. Are you suggesting that loyalty to one's own people is a human folly that causes war? Isn't loyalty to ones own universally considered a civic virtue? And isn't it a cultural universal that a lack of loyalty to ones own is frowned upon in every community?

Point two. You are suggesting that racism is not subject to reality. If racism is not subject to reality, then it should be easily countered by reasoned argument. But your side is insisting that the subject not be discussed at all, and that anyone who opens his mouth with a contrary view is "offending" a minority and they should be subject to legal sanction. Intelligent people believe that the insistence that a subject never be discussed is proof that it is intellectually bankrupt. How is it that you consider yourself intelligent, when you are supporting the tactics of the Holy Roman Church of 1600 which insisted that Earth was the centre of the universe, and that anyone who opposed that should be shown the instruments of torture to shut them up?

Point three&four

The racist "blame the white guy" explanation for minority dysfunction is the only argument of the so called "anti racists" which they use add infinitum. Can you think of any others to explain away minority dysfunction?

Point 5

You want to abolish all racial and religious laws and replace them with "group libel" which essentially means the same thing. Some civil libertarian you are. That will mean that no group of people can be criticised for any reason, and I suppose that means Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, and One Nation supporters? I guess not. As we have seen recently with the inaction by government paid human rights activists regarding Nicola Roxon's attempt to muzzle free speech, the socialist civil libertarians can be relied upon to look the other way whenever some group they don't like gets "libelled". It will only be their preferred minorities who will be beyond criticism. And that is racism.

Lego is riding the Gish gallop in ever contracting circles, repeatedly replacing what's in front of him with something he can rebut. That can go on for ever.

#1: Proposition: War is enabled by bad guys using racism (solidarity on basis of race) to cow a populace into rallying to the bad guys' cause. Thus massive rallies of Germans Sieg heiled their way into supporting scum on behalf of their race, thereby converting themselves into scum. Result: War.
#1 Gish diversion: Essentially, racism (i.e. loyalty to "one's own") is widely valued. (So?)

#2: Proposition (not substantiated in this post): In contrast to science, racism is ducking reality.
#2 Gish diversion: Prove it.
[There's a massive literature describing research doing this - an example is Edwin Black's comprehensive testimony available in Amazon Kindle $17.36) and referenced in my post. Gish's horse would never be caught up with in OLO posts].

The rest: A plethora of rewrites and assumptions about what "your side" is supposed to be proposing and none of which I have proposed. Codswallop about socialists (socialism is about creation, use and distribution of wealth, unrelated to the subject at hand but a great diversion worth whole herds of Gish gallopers).

One proposal he did touch on (by supplying a rewrite designed to be easily rebutted) was the proposition to apply libel law rather than criminalise "vilification". They are far from the same. To prove a libel the complainant must prove the utterance both damaging and untrue. Showing an utterance to be true kerzonks a libel case (unless it's Britain, the complainant is McDonald's and the judiciary is bent). In 18C of the Crimespeak Act truth is not a defence.

LEGO,

Your 19th century ideas of race have long been debunked. “Race” is now known to be (if anything) a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. Since mapping the human genome, we can now know that the physical features we often associate with races make up a mere 0.02% of our DNA - and none of these can be tied to intelligence. Approximately 85% of genetic variation occurs between individuals within the same community. Only 5-10% of genetic variation comes from people of different continents. Genetic mutation and the proportion of junk material in the human genome make it impossible to use a genetic marker to identify a group as a “race”.

“Ethnicity” has now largely taken the place of “race” as a concept, but even it has majority problems due to the fluidity of the concept.

<<The racist "blame the white guy" explanation for minority dysfunction is the only argument of the so called "anti racists" which they use add infinitum. Can you think of any others to explain away minority dysfunction?>>

The "blame the white guy" explanation would only be racist if the factors that were proposed to be at fault were presumed to be traits intrinsic to white people. Of course, no-one actually thinks this. No studies suggest this. This is just you being precious so that you can point the finger at those who know better and say, “See? You’re just as bigoted as I am!”

You claim to have logically arrived at your racial theories. The problem, however, is that you arrived at them based on a false premise that you have imagined: one in which you attribute a racism to others that isn’t there. It’s not about whites versus other “races”, it’s about the marginalisation of minorities. The same principal applies regardless of which “race” holds which position. We see this phenomenon in parts of the world that don’t even have white people.

Continued…

…Continued

I like how you skim over these points, too, by proffering the fact that the explanation is used “ad infinitum” is, in itself, a reason to think that it is wrong. There are hundreds of research studies that support marginalisation (and socioeconomic factors) as being the biggest influences of minority “dysfunction”, and precisely zero that counter them.

The best defence that you and your ilk can muster as a counterargument to this fact, is to appeal to some grand Leftwing conspiracy while conveniently ignoring the fact that - like any other scientist - social scientists thrive on disproving each other: it makes a name for them. Others will mention them and reference their work as evidence for theirs even if only posthumously. People are selfish creatures and to suggest that EVERY social scientist sacrifices their chance at fame for some socialist grand plan is to demonstrate a serious disconnect from reality.

AJ Taylor: Thanks for taking over. I didn't know whose patience would run out first - mine or Graham Young's.

I do beg to differ on marginalisation of minorities. I think it looks as if the dysfunction contributes to the marginalisation as well as the margialisation contributing to the dysfunction. A sure-fire way for a group to become or stay marginalised is to reject education, dodge or disrupt school, brawl over trivialities and and drink themselves stupid, as happens within groups of many different ethnicities and mixtures of ethnicities. This view is coloured by a philosophy that ascribes a lot of responsibility to the individual and doesn't believe it can be shunted donk donk donkety donk back to Adam.

If race does not exist, Mr Phillips, then descriptive terms like aborigine, Pacific Islander, Scandinavian and Hispanic would be meaningless. The words "genocide" and "affirmative action' would be meaningless because "there is only one race, the human race." What we constantly get from "anti racists" is that the concept of race exists whenever they can get some mileage out of it, and it does not exist when it is convenient for them to deny it.

There may be 0.02% difference in genomes between humans, but there is about 2% difference between humans and chimpanzees, so a bit of difference is important. Would you be able to tell me the percentage of difference between a Pit Bull dog and a Labrador? It is probably less than 0.02% difference but I would prefer to let my kids play with a Labrador rather than a damned Pit Bull.

Adolph Hitler is considered a racist because of many racist ideas. One of them was to blame all of the misfortunes of the German people on the Jews. "Anti racists" do exactly what Hitler did by always blaming white people for the dysfunctions of blacks. Yes, that is racism.

As for "marginalisation", that is just another "blame the white guy" argument. The theory goes, that because the uncaring white people don't give two hoots about blacks, then black dysfunction must therefore be the fault of whites. But the people who peddle this nonsense fail to mention that in the USA alone, between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse. Just which race is the more "uncaring" and the more racist?

As for "science", I first read the scientific works "A Mind to Crime" followed by "The Bell Curve". I followed them up by reading the "anti racist" book by Paul Breggin called "The War on Children" where he openly bragged about how he and the NAACP had successfully lobbied the US congress to withdraw funding from any geneticist who dared to suggest a genetic link between crime, race, and intelligence.

LEGO,

Descriptive terms such as the ones you mention can still be useful in describing one's culture or place of origin or residence, or to a certain extent, appearance. But from a genetic point of view, they are near useless. Especially when one tries to ascribe intelligence personality traits to an entire people. That is completely unscientific. Take, for example, an assertion you made under your old nom de plume, that the only aboriginals who appeared to you to have any brains were those that had had a dose of white genes injected into them (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4490#43534). Geneticists have have found absolutely nothing in the human genome that would come close to supporting such a vile view and yet you hold it anyway.

As for genocide and affirmative action, they refer to any group of people (e.g. religious, cultural). So no, they wouldn't be meaningless. And the only reason those whom you accuse of gaining mileage from the concept of "race" need to mention anything close to it at all is because of ignorant, discredited old ideas about "races" such as yours! It has nothing to do with picking and choosing what's convenient at the time.

<<There may be 0.02% difference in genomes between humans, but there is about 2% difference between humans and chimpanzees, so a bit of difference is important.>>

Yes, but the gene expression of humans and chimps is very different so your comparison is radically inaccurate.

<<Would you be able to tell me the percentage of difference between a Pit Bull dog and a Labrador? It is probably less than 0.02% difference but I would prefer to let my kids play with a Labrador rather than a damned Pit Bull.>>

Actually, it's way more than that. Approximately 27% (however, the gene expression is still the same). Some peer reviewed articles on this topic can be found at https://www.princeton.edu/genomics/kruglyak/publication/PDF/2004_Parker_Genetic.pdf if you have university library access.

<<"Anti racists" do exactly what Hitler did by always blaming white people for the dysfunctions of blacks. Yes, that is racism.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Yeah, I already addressed this. Wording it differently isn't going to change anything. No-one claims that the responsibility of whites is an unavoidable genetic trait inherent to them. I suggest you look up the definition of "racism". Even if it were racist, though, it doesn't make your racist position any better. It just means you're apparently happy to be down there playing in the mud with them rather than rising above it all.

<<As for "marginalisation", that is just another "blame the white guy" argument. The theory goes, that because the uncaring white people don't give two hoots about blacks, then black dysfunction must therefore be the fault of whites. But the people who peddle this nonsense fail to mention that in the USA alone, between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse. Just which race is the more "uncaring" and the more racist?>>

No, criminologists recognise such statistics, they just realise that the causes are the same. Nice try on the "uncaring" bit though. Ten points for creativity.

<<As for "science", I first read the scientific works "A Mind to Crime" followed by "The Bell Curve". I followed them up by reading the "anti racist" book by Paul Breggin called "The War on Children" where he openly bragged about how he and the NAACP had successfully lobbied the US congress to withdraw funding from any geneticist who dared to suggest a genetic link between crime, race, and intelligence.>>

You know, it is actually possible to set out to research one idea and come back with result supporting another conclusion. So your funding conspiracy only goes so far. I would also be interested in why funding was withdrawn. Could it perhaps be because finding a link would provide us with no solutions to the problem of crime without inciting racial hatred?

As for your racist books, they've been thoroughly debunked, and if you really want to know why, then I'd suggest you read some peer reviewed scientific journals that look specifically at the authors' arguments.

Dear Mr Phillips, it can hardly be "genetically useless" to conclude that the very noticeable differences in the appearances of different races is due to different genetics. And if races differ through genetics in physical appearance and physical attributes, then it is a reasonable assumption to assume that they have differing mental attributes. Especially since some races are characteristically dysfunctional regardless of which culture they inhabit. "The Bell Curve" was serious scientific work that proved that different races have differing bell curves of intelligence. If all races were of equal intelligence, then it should be easy for any cognitive metrician win a Nobel Prize by proving what you say is true. But other than throwing brickbats at "the Bell Curve", no socially progressive liberal cognitive metrician is going to try that. Even though they still pretend that all races are equal for ideological reasons, they know that this is not so.

As for the "racist" book "A Mind to Crime", it is a serious scientific work in which the word "race" never appears even once in it's 560 pages, and which examines the clear causal link between crime and genetics. Imagine my surprise when the Australian Bureau of Criminology produced a white paper agreeing with all of its it's premises? (Trends and Issues No. 263) Are you suggesting that Australia's government criminologists are racists too?

I once debated a socially progressive woman with a law degree who handed out copies of the Green Left Weekly. She angrily denied that black crime was very disproportionately directed at whites. But to her credit, she checked her internet and came back ruefully admitting that it was true. That woman was smart because she had the emotional maturity to put aside her prejudices, turn on her objective reasoning circuits, and look for impartial facts on which to base a conclusion. Why don't you do the same thing? I don't ask you to believe anything I say, I ask you to look with an open mind. "May the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."

continued

continued

There is only one definition of "genocide" in the English language, although our UN friends are changing that by introducing six entirely new definitions that conform to their egalitarian social agenda. "Words mean exactly what I say they mean, nothing more, nothing less" (Through the Looking Glass)

And just as with the word "genocide", the word "racism" has been expanded by the "anti racist" lobby to mean anything they want. Originally it was meant to denote a particular doctrine. But civil rights progressives have extended it to mean racial prejudice, racial hostility, and racial discrimination. In 1965 the UN ruled that "racism" should also mean the propagation of racist doctrines, racial hostility, and racial discrimination. So on that UN definition, that "racism" means the propagation of racist doctrines, the propagation of a doctrine that white people are always responsible for the dysfunctions of trouble prone minorities, is conducive to creating racial hostility towards whites, and it is therefore racism according to the UN.

Now you are claiming that there is only 0.02% of genome difference between breeds of humans but 27% genome difference between breed of dogs. I will let our audience judge the merits of your extraordinary statistics. Thank you for giving me that one. It helps my side enormously when my opponents destroy their own credibility.

Now we get to the anti racist book "The War on Children". I bought the book because I really wanted to see how the anti racists would counter the clear scientific arguments linking race, intelligence and crime. I discovered that countering scientific argument was now what the author Breggin had in mind. With a vehemence worthy of Tom Cruise, he attacked the scientific disciples of Psychology, Psychiatry, the Cognitive Metrician's, even the medical profession, linking them all to Nazi Eugenicists. He bragged about how he used political muscle and economic sanction to shut the scientists up. Any ideology which attempts to shut up science is intellectually bankrupt

Yooooooo Hooooo!, Mr Phillips. Where arrrrrrrre Youuuuuuuu?

Damn.

That is the second time Mr Phillips have locked horns with me on racism, and the second time he has done the runner.

The second time, LEGO?

<<That is the second time Mr Phillips have locked horns with me on racism, and the second time he has done the runner.>>

When was the first?

Sorry, but I’ve been a little busy recently and this really bores me (no offense). Not everyone who stops responding is doing a “runner” (I love the double entendre there). You should know this (or perhaps not) having done a few yourself. Anyway, just for you…

From a genetic point-of-view, yes, race is of little to no significance. There is nothing to suggest that the genes that control physical appearance influence our personalities: we know enough about the human genome to know that it is highly unlikely that we'll find any link to race and intelligence/mentality.

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. Physical appearances are only affected by our genes. Now, you can claim that nurture doesn't play a part in shaping our personalities, but you'd be in disagreement with every expert on the topic. The only thing in contention is the extent to which each of the two factors contributes to our personalities. Further to this, our brains are highly complex organs that function off of a delicate balance of chemicals that are subject to change over time and as a result of life circumstances.

As for certain races being characteristically dysfunctional regardless of which culture they inhabit, there are other contributing factors such as poverty, lack of resources, religion and lack of education - if it's the dysfunction of certain "races'" homelands that you're also referring to. The Western world hasn't always been the greatest either. While Western society was mired in the dark ages and burning witches, other "races" were creating the foundations for our understanding of medicine and astronomy.

The Bell Curve is not the serious scientific piece of work that it was posed to be. Here are just a few links explain the problems with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/the-bell-curve/
http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1997/01/the_bell_curve_flattened.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm

Continued…

…Continued

As for the other book you mentioned, I apologise for skimming over that in my haste. That was rude of me. Yes, there does appear to be a genetic factor to criminality. We have no idea to what extent genetics plays a role in criminal behaviour, though, and we can know to a high degree of certainty that it is not tied to “race” (I go back to my first paragraph to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724).

I too have read Trends & Issues as a part of the curriculum for the Bachelor of Criminology that I am currently studying. I don’t know why you would be surprised that criminologists recognise a genetic factor to criminal behaviour. As I pointed out before, there is no grand leftist conspiracy going on. Some conservatives just don’t like what research often finds and cry conspiracy rather than altering their views - the sort of behaviour that is consistent, after all, with the notion of being ‘conservative’.

The problem with the genetic factor is that it isn’t very useful. There’s no where we can go from there. From a crime prevention aspect, socioeconomic conditions have been by far the most useful in *broadly* determining where intervention is needed.

Regarding the definition of ‘genocide’: okay, let’s say that it only refers to races (how the act is different when it targets, say, religious groups instead, is something you haven’t explained). So what? Again I remind you that it is only “convenient” for the scientifically literate to refer to “race”, when speaking of genocide, because the ignorant generalising of those who have committed genocide necessitates it. The directing of your anger towards primarily those who condemn genocide and your eerie silence regarding the perpetrators of it is telling to say the least. You almost sound like you want certain groups to be able to commit such acts without criticism.

As for the definition of ‘racism’: again, criticisms regarding marginalisation and socioeconomic causes for the apparent dysfunction of certain groups is not an attack any particular race. More importantly, nor is it supposed to be.

Continued…

…Continued

It is in reference to majorities and minorities. So your point regarding the UN is irrelevant. If someone wants to take what research shows to mean that Caucasians are inherently to blame, then that’s their problem. No-one else can be held responsible for that.

<<Now you are claiming that there is only 0.02% of genome difference between breeds of humans but 27% genome difference between breed of dogs. I will let our audience judge the merits of your extraordinary statistics.>>

Yes, because audiences are always the best judges, aren't they.

In my haste and word limits, I didn’t make myself clear there. 27% is not necessarily the genetic variation between a Pitbull and a Labrador; it’s the genetic variation over all dog breeds (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetics-of-dog-breeding-434). That being said, the variation over humans is not 0.02% and nor have I ever claimed it to be. In comparison, the genetic variation in humans is 5-10%.

But hey, let's forget percentages. They're not even relevant. No, let's go one further. Let's say the genetic difference between a Pitbull and a Labrador is 0.0000001%. So what? Human "races" are not dog breeds. Dog breeds are specifically bred for their looks and personality traits. Human "races" are not. Further to that, the genetic variation that our selective breeding in dogs has produced still baffles scientists to this day. We've been breeding cats for longer and we still can't get that level of variety in them. Moreover, humans have one of the narrowest genes pools of all species that we know of because 70,000 years ago a volcanic eruption reduced our population to a mere 30,000 through years of darkness.

Your 'dog breed' analogy is a false analogy fallacy and a classic old racist furphy.

Sorry LEGO ol’ son. All this talk between us and you are still yet to make any headway. Perhaps now you know why I didn’t want to bother responding.

I think it’s back to the drawing board for you.

My apologies for claiming I had done you over before, Mr Philips. Since you presented that old quote of mine from a few years back, I presumed you were the person whom I jumped all over then.

En guarde.

Now, Mr Phillips. First you claimed that genetics affects our appearance, but not our personalities. Then by some application of doublethink, you then claimed that personality is a factor of nature and nurture. That is a clear contradiction. What is this force of "nature" that you claim affects personality if it is not genetic? Don't try and blame hormones, because hormone production is a factor of genetics. You are a dead duck on that premise alone unless you can explain your way out of that.

Oddly enough, you compounded your error by first saying that you are studying Criminology, and then you admitted that criminologists see a causal link between genetics and criminal behaviour. You just shot yourself in the foot again. You have just admitted that genetics and behaviour are linked.

Now, if genetics and criminal behaviour are linked, and certain races are very disproportionately linked to serious criminal behaviour, then............(join the dots.)

As to a "leftist conspiracy", I do advocate that. My prime exhibit is the Australian Bureau of Criminology, which released another white paper claiming that ethnic criminal behaviour is a figment of the Australian public's imagination. That would be a big surprise to the inhabitants of Sydney, who know for a fact that certain ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in drug trafficking and crimes of violence. But lefty criminologists are not going to let the facts get in the way of their humanitarian theories.

If you are studying Criminology, then the first thing that you should figure out is that crime is not always a product of a poverty linked environment. The poorest areas of Australia are our rural areas, which (if you removed the aborigines) would be almost crime free. Some Australian country towns have never had an armed robbery in their entire history, despite country people always having access to firearms.

.....to be continue

continued

But while poverty can be a factor of location and history, it can be most commonly attributed to low intelligence. Dumb people are usually poor people. Dumb people do stupid things. Dumb people do not care about education. Dumb people routinely get into trouble with the law. While education can make people smarter, no amount of education can make a basically dumb person into a genius. Smart parents usually (but not always) have smart kids. But dumb people almost always have dumb kids. Intelligence is therefore heritable. And if it is heritable, it is genetic.

Finally I get to "The Bell Curve". When it came out, it was greeted by the left wing academics intellectuals with the same hostility as Darwin's theory of Evolution was greeted by the church educated academics in his time. The academics went into overdrive trying to think up something, anything, with which to discredit this famous scientific work that was written by two very respected scientists. These critics claim that IQ testing is wrong, even though IQ testing is accepted throughout governments and industry as the most reliable way of measuring intelligence. This testing, done over a hundred years, clearly displays a difference in bell curve intelligences in different races.

Now, if this is wrong, on the principle that it is easier to prove the truth than to claim that a lie is the truth, why have not these critics won themselves the gratitude of the left wing world by testing the races themselves and proving that all races have equal intelligence? The reason is, because for all their bluster and muddying of the water, they can't do that because they know that the book is correct.

To summarise, genetics and criminal behaviour are linked. Low intelligence and criminal behaviour is linked. A hundred years of IQ testing tells us that certain races generally have low intelligence, and (surprise, surprise), they are the ethnicities who are very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour.

Bingo.

Erm... No, LEGO. I didn't claim that.

<<First you claimed that genetics affects our appearance, but not our personalities.>>

Although I did say that you cannot genetically attribute certain personality traits to an entire group like you can (at least to a greater extent) attribute physical traits, while later clarifying that personalities have other influences that go well beyond genetics; implying that it was impossible for every member of a "race" to possess the same personality traits - as can be achieved with controlled, selective breeding in dogs.

Please do try to keep up.

<<You just shot yourself in the foot again. You have just admitted that genetics and behaviour are linked.>>

Yes, while never having denied it either. But that doesn't mean that we can generalise about an entire group. Once again, I refer you to my very first paragraph to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724). Perhaps I should also add that if you think that the 0.02% of our human genes, that control the differences that we see in physical appearance between "races", can have as dramatic effects as those seen between dog breeds, then what of the 85% difference in the 5-10% variation, that I mentioned earlier, between individuals of any "race" or "ethnicity"? If the tiny percentage (as you suspected/claimed) in genetic difference between Pitbulls and Labradors concerns you, then how do you trust any stranger? Could it be that you understand, when it's convenient, that humans are not bred for specific traits as dogs are?

Again, please do try to keep up.

<<Now, if genetics and criminal behaviour are linked, and certain races are very disproportionately linked to serious criminal behaviour, then............(join the dots.)>>

We'll, yeah, if you ignore 90% of what I've... I see your point.

As for your "Leftist conspiracy" that you don't deny, your whole problem is that every time you see differences between "races", you automatically assume that it's genetic despite no evidence to support this and all the evidence pointing to the contrary.

Continued...

...Continued

As a response to this, you then claim that there is some grand Leftwing conspiracy being plotted by a secret brotherhood in academia formed to prevent any evidence that may support your views from surfacing; a secret brotherhood so loyal to The Order that they completely forgo fame and prestige to preserve their ideology.

Well guess what, LEGO? Your taboo views were not always taboo in academia. Decades ago, there were psychologists, sociologists and criminologists that proposed all sorts of crazy hypotheses; hypotheses that, in our more enlightened times, are just plain offensive to most. Everything from racial theories to supposed criminogenic indicators in physical features. But as time went on, and evidence was sought for proposed ideas, certain ones fell by the wayside, while others gained traction. (Nowadays, with no evidence to support so many of their views, social conservatives are left stubbornly clinging to conspiracy theories and junk science from blogs and populist books posing as credible scientific opinion.)

You, on the other hand, would simply claim that Lefties systematically infiltrated our universities and bullied conservatives out by convincing the powers that be to starve them of any funding while somehow managing to suppress all accidental findings that may contradict their "cherished" beliefs.

No prizes for guessing which scenario sounds more conspiratorial and just plain cuckoo.

Regarding this article from the AIC that you speak of, I'd appreciate if you could link me to it. I suspect your description is a very emotive take on it. Did you check their references to validate the accuracy of their claims? Criminologists don't just make stuff up, you know.

<<If you are studying Criminology, then the first thing that you should figure out is that crime is not always a product of a poverty linked environment.>>

There are multiple factors to any situation (hence my emphasis on the word "broadly" in my last post) and never once is jumping to your unsupported 'genetics' assumption necessary. Unlike metropolitan areas, rural communities often have a strong sense of community that helps to negate the criminogenic potential of poverty.

Continued...

...Continued

On top of that, the fact that they're all so closely socially connected, in rural communities, makes the psychological neutralising of any potential offence near impossible, and deterrence is a much bigger factor when an individual risks being identified in the process of committing an offence or cannot just slip away quietly into the anonymity that a metropolitan area provides, once they have committed an offence.

As for aborigines, they have such a long and understandably troubled history that if you can just assume some genetic inferiority without acknowledging any of the crippling effects of cultural displacement, then there is no hope for you.

I would love to know what you think finding a genetic link would achieve, though. What non-draconian crime prevention methods would it help us to implement? Or would proving such a link just make you feel better?

In regards to your Bell Curve-Evolution analogy, those who fought against Darwin's ideas had no evidence to the contrary, just a faith. So your analogy is false.

Finally, your claims regarding "dumb" people, criminality and I.Q. ignore the fact that, not only is the nature-nurture bone of contention a problem for I.Q. too, but you get the whole chicken-and-egg problem on top of that. And as if that wasn't bad enough, criminality, lack of education, poverty and low I.Q. all tend to exacerbate each other. Someone who is told that a holy book contains all that they'll ever need to know, or whose cognitive development is hindered by the trauma of an abusive and/or impoverished upbringing is probably going to score low on an I.Q. test despite their genetic potential. Hundreds of studies have been conducted in an attempt to gain a clearer understanding of the different relationships at play here, but still this area remains blurry. And here you think you can just brush it all off with something as fluid and difficult to pin down as genetics. Amazing!

Dear Mr Phillips.

Human beings are mammals of the primate order. Mammalian species such as dogs, horses, cats, cattle, sheep and humans, all possess identifiably different subsets called "breeds", which may be the result of environmental conditions affecting natural selection, or the result of selective breeding. Regardless of which force genetically alters mammalian orders to result in identifiably different breeds, it is common knowledge that different breeds of mammals possess not only differing physical attributes, but differing personalities as well.

Your premise is, that genetic transmission of personality works for mammalian animals but can not work for mammalian humans. Sorry, I can't accept that. And I will leave it to the judgement of our readers as to whether your premise is logical.

Your next premise, is that there are only tiny genetic variations between human races, so these variations can do nothing more than alter the physical appearances of the races. I don't buy that either. I am not a geneticist, but I will wager that the degree of genetic variation between all breeds of mammals is very small, but it results in very noticeable variations of both appearance, as well as physical and mental abilities. Especially since we know that behaviour and intelligence is heritable.

As for humans not being bred for specific traits, that is nonsense. To begin with, many breeds of animals are bred specifically for physical attributes like high milk capacity, fecundity, weight of meat, or just a pleasing appearance. The resulting personality traits exhibited by these breeds may be incidental to the desired characteristics selectively bred. Furthermore, environmental conditions may result in the natural selection of breeds with particular personalities like high intelligence, or a violent and fearless nature. Lastly, human beings themselves selectively breed. Males select females possessing physical beauty related to breeding attributes, while females prefer Alpha males with money and power.

continued

continued

Next we came to left wing conspiracies. It is a self evident fact that there is little cultural diversity in the humanities disciples of universities. Anyone who violates the current left wing humanitarian orthodoxy gets shown the instruments of torture. This happened recently to that towering scientific giant, James Watson, (co discoverer of the double helix) who was suspended from his own US research institute when he informed a British newspaper that Africans were not as intelligent as Europeans. Hey, what would the co discoverer of the double helix know about genetics?

This cross connects with the anti racist book by Paul Breggins, "The War on Children" in which Breggin openly bragged about how he and the NAACP had used political influence to shut up the genetic scientists, including those on the prestigious Human Genome Project. I repeat, that any ideology which tries to shut up scientists, especially scientists of the stature of James Watson, is intellectually bankrupt. And you are right about there being some crazy hypotheses bandied about in the halls of science and academia. The wackiest one at the moment, is that all races are absolutely equal in intellectual ability. Mind you, no one has ever bothered to prove that hypothesis, it is just accepted within the humanities academia as an act of faith. But some distinguished scientists have proven the opposite, and they get silenced or jumped on from a great height for daring to commit heresy against the prevailing orthodoxy of this internationalist humanitarian faith.

The AIC paper which you are referring to is issue 263, "Is There a Genetic Susceptibility to Engage in Criminal Acts?" If you want to examine it, go right ahead. But since you have already accepted that criminologists agree that there is a genetic causal link to criminal behaviour, it is not going to help you much. As for "Criminologists not making up stuff', the same IAC released another study paper claiming that the public perception about ethnic criminal behaviour going out of control was all the result of sensationalist media reporting. Yeah, right.

Continued

continued.

If poverty was a causal link to criminal behaviour, all poor communities would have high rates of criminal behaviour. This is demonstrably false. The Book "Rising crime in Australia" uses the statistics from the Parliamentary yearbooks to prove that crime in Australia was at it's lowest during the Great Depression when the Australian population was at its poorest. There was very real poverty in England at the beginning of the 20th Century, but the English from 1900 to 1950 attained the lowest homicide rate ever recorded by any advanced society. (0.2 per 100,000) Much to the amazement of police forces around the world, English beat policemen alone were not even armed with sidearm's.

Finally, we get to your extraordinary claim that if the premise that some races are not as intelligent as others, and are much more prone to criminal behaviour than others, what good does this do to publicise it? This equates with the quote from the woman who once claimed that even if Darwin was right, and that humans did evolve from apes, why would anybody want to tell people about it?

The litmus paper test for any person who considers himself intelligent is "may the truth be told, though the heavens may fall." Today, western countries are basing their immigration policies on the flawed concept that all races are equal. The result has been spiralling rates of social strife, serious crime, and welfare dependency. The only explanation for this phenomenon is to always blame my white race for the shortcomings of others. Any government policy which is based upon a demonstrably false lie, however well intentioned that lie may be, is doomed to fail. The continued existence of the liberal democracies, and for the peaceful progress of this world, is dependent upon the liberal democracies getting our facts right instead of scapegoating my race

LEGO,

The term "breed" is used in reference to varieties of domesticated animals. Not humans.

<<...dogs, horses, cats, cattle, sheep and humans, all possess identifiably different subsets called "breeds"...>>

Presumably you knew this and that's why you listed five species of domesticated animals before slipping in humans at the end there in the hope that I wouldn't notice.

<<...which may be the result of environmental conditions affecting natural selection, or the result of selective breeding...>>

Incorrect. "Breeds" refer to varieties of species that have been selectively bred. They are not scientifically recognised classifications, either, due to their human-induced fluidity.

<<...it is common knowledge that different breeds of mammals possess not only differing physical attributes, but differing personalities as well.>>

Correct. Because they have been selectively bred. You’re also ignoring the points that I made regarding 'nurture', which negate what you're saying here. Your unexplained introduction of ‘mammalia’ appears to be some sort of a red herring too.

<<Your premise is, that genetic transmission of personality works for mammalian animals but can not work for mammalian humans.>>

I have said nothing of the sort. You are simply confusing ‘selective breeding’ with ‘natural selection’. The two have completely different forces at work and one has an end-goal while the other does not. Clearly you don’t understand evolution.

<<Your next premise, is that there are only tiny genetic variations between human races, so these variations can do nothing more than alter the physical appearances of the races.>>No, I didn't say that. That would be a non sequitur.

Perhaps I should have included tew words, “as of yet”, then. However, the rest of that paragraph should have eliminated any need to. Once again: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724

<<I don't buy that either. I am not a geneticist, but I will wager that the degree of genetic variation between all breeds of mammals is very small, but it results in very noticeable variations of both appearance, as well as physical and mental abilities. Especially since we know that behaviour and intelligence is heritable.>>

Continued...

...Continued

I have already answered all this and countered it all in previous posts. Once again, repeating yourself using different words doesn't negate what I've said.

<<As for humans not being bred for specific traits, that is nonsense.>>

Okay then, who is breeding us?

<<To begin with, many breeds of animals are bred specifically for physical attributes like high milk capacity, fecundity, weight of meat, or just a pleasing appearance. The resulting personality traits exhibited by these breeds may be incidental to the desired characteristics selectively bred.>>

Correct. But they are still selectively bred and for very specific purposes, while those who do not 'fit the bill' are either not bred or destroyed (i.e. their genetic line ends with them) natural selection, on the other hand, is far less picky. All one needs to do is survive long enough to pass one's genes on. This is yet another false analogy.

<<Males select females possessing physical beauty related to breeding attributes, while females prefer Alpha males with money and power.>>

Yes, and when we see a woman with small breasts and lacking an hourglass figure, we keep her separate from all males so that she cannot possibly pass on her genes. In all seriousness though...

<<Next we came to left wing conspiracies. It is a self evident fact that there is little cultural diversity in the humanities disciples of universities.>>

As for your conspiracy theories, all I can do is refer you back to what I've said previously. You sound very naive in regards to how peer-review works. If one has good evidence for their research findings - regardless of what they are - then no amount of ideology can bring that down. Claiming, too, that academics assert that average IQs amongst different "races" are equal, is an oversimplification at best and a lie at worst. I have already addressed the IQ issue, yet you persist with this claim.

As for James Watson, he regretted his comments and (after already having stepped down from his position) admitted that there was no evidence for his remarks.

Continued...

...Continued

Thanks for letting me know which paper it was that you were referring to. I'll
Check it out.

<<If you want to examine it, go right ahead. But since you have already accepted that criminologists agree that there is a genetic causal link to criminal behaviour, it is not going to help you much.>>

But unlike yourself, apparently, I'm always open to new information and the possibility of changing my mind. What's wrong with challenging the status quo? That is, after all, what academia is all about, despite your conspiracy theories.

<<As for "Criminologists not making up stuff', the same IAC released another study paper claiming that the public perception about ethnic criminal behaviour going out of control was all the result of sensationalist media reporting. Yeah, right.>>

Do you have any evidence for your scepticism? Or is, "Yeah right", enough for you?

Having written an essay on the media's influence on the public's perception of crime, I can vouch for the overwhelming evidence in support of the proposition. So if you have any evidence to the contrary, then I'd be fascinated to see it. In my research, I could only find a couple of articles asking that we still exercise caution, and not jump to conclusions too quickly, despite the overwhelming evidence.

That's right, LEGO, a crucial part of doing research, and presenting it for peer-review, is to provide evidence to the contrary of ones thesis and provide further evidence to contradict it.

<<If poverty was a causal link to criminal behaviour, all poor communities would have high rates of criminal behaviour...>>

Ah, not necessarily. This is where Strain Theory (and the various responses to it) comes into the mix. A theory with mountains of evidence to support it. So no, what I had said was not “demonstrably false” in the slightest.

<<Finally, we get to your extraordinary claim that if the premise that some races are not as intelligent as others ... what good does this do to publicise it?>>
That wasn’t a claim at all. It was a question. You even worded it as such!

Continued...

...Continued

You've merely confused the two because you realise that your new 'evolution' analogy wouldn't work otherwise.
By the way, I'd still like an answer to my question there.

<<Today, western countries are basing their immigration policies on the flawed concept that all races are equal. The result has been spiralling rates of social strife, serious crime, and welfare dependency.>>

Well, look who's apparently a victim of media reporting...I don't have the stats on welfare dependency, nor do I know what you're talking about when you speak of "social strife" (that’s a pretty broad term!); crime rates, however, have been in decline since the '70s. The only form of crime that is up is violent assault (not including rape). Meanwhile, the public is becoming increasingly afraid of crime and the older one is, the more distorted one’s views are of the likelihood of victimisation. Ironically, the older one is, the less likely they are to become a victim of crime and, funnily enough, the more likely they are to rely on the 6:00 news - statistically the biggest perpetrator of distorted crime reporting.

<<The only explanation for this phenomenon is to always blame my white race for the shortcomings of others.>>

I've already addressed this. It has nothing to do with race; this is merely you being precious.

Sorry, LEGO, but if you cannot come up with a response that does not entail responding to something that I haven't said, resorting to conspiracy theories without rationally justifying them, or repeating nonsense that I have already addressed, then I'm outta here.

By the way, I can reference all of my claims if you'd like. I recently wrote an essay on racism too, so I could easily refer you to about 20 peer-reviewed journal articles - complete with studies and further references - pointing you to where I get my information from, if you'd like to check the accuracy of any of my claims. Perhaps you could check the methodologies and conclusions of the studies conducted and point me to the shortcomings in them that are being conveniently overlooked by academics?

Dear Mr Phillips.

The term "breed" can be, and is used, in the description of subspecies of human beings, although this may be considered impolite. We can use the term "subspecies" of humans or animals instead of "breeds," but that hardly changes the validity of my argument. Subspecies of selectively bred domesticated animals display wide divergence of heritable behaviour within subspecies. Your premise is, this could not happen in natural selection, but it does. Like humans and domesticated animals, feral animal species contain subspecies which display intra subspecies behaviour which is different from other subspecies within the same genus. An example would be the Brown Bear genus, of which the Grizzly Bear of Western USA is a subspecies. The Grizzley is renowned to be much more violent and dangerous than the other 89 subspecies of Brown Bear. The biological name of the Grizzly Bear is Ursus Actos Horribly.

You have already admitted that within all human subspecies, personality traits such as a proneness towards criminal behaviour is heritable. So, if genetically heritable physical features such as skin colour and nose size is common within geographically localised human subspecies, caused by natural selection within that localised environment, how could it be that behaviour (which you have already conceded can be genetically heritable) could not also be common within that localised subgroup?

Subgroups of humans can be races,castes, or classes. Both race and class are social constructs that give names to identifiable abstract concepts. It is very common amongst the higher levels of human social classes to engage in selective breeding. To put it more generally, in the higher classes, title marries title, money marries money, and brains marries brains. The primary genetic variation to this formulae is the very beautiful low status young woman. Whereas the marriage of high born females to low born men is socially unacceptable in the upper classes. The marriage of very attractive low born females to high born males can be considered socially acceptable, and it has resulted in the noted good looks of the higher classes. They are routinely called 'the beautiful people."

continued

continued

In addition, in some societies, high born males have very disproportionate access to breeding females. It is very common for the most violent and psychotic male to murder his way to the top. An example would be King Mithridatise of Anatolia who murdered his father and his19 brothers gain the kingship, and who enjoyed a large harem. The world's most notorious psychopath, Ghengis Khan, impregnated so many Asian females that geneticists talk of the Ghengis Khan gene in Asian populations.

It is hardly a "conspiracy theory" that the ABC and the humanities departments of universities are hotbeds of socialist advocacy. The ABC in particular regularly comes in form criticism of its left wing bias.

James Watson was not only the co discover of the double helix anda Nobel laureate, he was also the head of the Human Genome Project. This is what he said which got him sacked from his position as head of a US research institute.

"....there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”

And yes, just like Galilieo before him, he was forced to recant what he said. But it wasn't enough, an intellectual fatwa was put on him and he was sacked anyway. But at least the forces of darkness did not succeed in having him put under house arrest for 13 years like Galileo. I guess that's progress. There was some talk about chiselling his name off the list of Nobel Laureates carved in stone though.

Now we get down to the premise that ethnic criminal behaviour is a figment of the public's imagination brought on by sensationalist news reporting. I made "yeah, right" comment because I wrongly presumed that anyone capable of impartial reasoned thought considered it self evident that ethnic criminal behaviour in Australia was right out of control.

continue

continued

Surprisingly. you disagreed. I think we are digressing from our topic, but since you have challenged me to provide proof, I will do so because it is so easy.

Are you seriously suggesting that the drive by killings in primarily the Arab areas of Sydney have always occurred? Even when the populations of those areas were Anglo Saxons? Yeah, right. In May, 2001, the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research admitted in their publication "Crime and Justice Bulletin" (issue number 57) that 55% of the handgun shooting in the entire state of NSW occurred within the boundaries of two ethnic ghettos (Canterbury-Bankstown and Liverpool-Fairfield."

In addition, the largest police squad in NSW is the Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad and it was formed specifically to target 2.5% of the population.

Would you like a few pages more of facts? You had better get the character who runs this site to let me post a 5000 word post. Even though my sources are the media. But that is hardly surprising that this is my primary source of information. In 1993, the sundry self appointed ethnic leaders in Australia successfully lobbied the Federal government to prevent the Australian Bureau of Statistics from compiling or collating any statistics related to ethnic crime. You don't have to be a Mensa from the local Audobon society to figure out why they did that.

As being intimidated by your claim that you have all the facts, hey mate, I am just getting warmed up. Please keep it up. I am really enjoying our exchanges. Please post up your little "Strain Theory" so that I can amuse myself by poking holes in it

I’ve got to say, LEGO: one thing that I do admire about you is the fight in you. It doesn’t matter how many times you get knocked down, you just get straight back up again for another try - while trying to throw sand in my eyes.

<<Subspecies of selectively bred domesticated animals display wide divergence of heritable behaviour within subspecies…>>

I assume that last “subspecies” at the end there was supposed to just be “species”. Otherwise you’d be arguing against yourself. But yes, I’m happy to go with this.

<<Your premise is, this could not happen in natural selection, but it does.>>

No, my premise - or more to the point, what the evidence actually suggests (this is not about me) - is more that this is highly unlikely to happen due to cultural, sociological, psychological and neurochemical factors that are also an influence on naturally “bred” groups (i.e. ‘nurture’ - for the fifth time now); factors that you ignore in your bear analogy. You fail to recognise that humans are culturally, socially, intellectually and emotionally far more sophisticated than other species and this has a massive - if not completely negating - effect on our ability to pin down common personality traits as genetic; especially when geneticists themselves still cannot find any genetic links.

Let’s look at white Australians for a moment. Generally speaking, we’re a relatively apathetic bunch compared to other nations, yet we haven’t all been here breeding together long enough for that to be a genetic trait. It’s a culturally influenced phenomenon. What about the hard-working Japanese? Do you put that down to genetics too, despite there being no evidence for that whatsoever; or are you happy to go with the cultural explanation there because it’s a positive trait? You completely ignore cultural influences without having given any good reason to.

How do you distinguish between genetic influences and cultural? Is it because some “races” seem dysfunction no matter where they are? If so, then remember that I have already addressed that.

Continued…

...Continued

To add to all this, our mobility and the conquering that often accompanied it, over the last 200,000 odd years, has helped to mix up the genes in our already very small gene pool faster than other species, whose mobility tends only to be influenced by food and environmental factors. Not the desire to explore or conquer.

<<You have already admitted that within all human subspecies, personality traits such as a proneness towards criminal behaviour is heritable.>>

I like how you say “admitted”. It makes it sound like I was pinned into a corner, or something.

Yes, within all of them. “Race” isn’t a factor. You’re riding this one for all it’s worth, aren’t you. I should point out here that there is still no definitive evidence and, so far, it only APPEARS as though genetics plays a role. The only evidence for this is that children born into families with a criminal past have a higher chance of offending later on in life, but that could just be a learned behaviour. A study of 14,000 adoptees (Mednick, Gabrielli and Hutchings, 1994) also suggested a genetic link, but this only turned out to be true of property crimes, not violent.

<<So, if genetically heritable physical features such as skin colour and nose size is common within geographically localised human subspecies, caused by natural selection within that localised environment, how could it be that behaviour (which you have already conceded can be genetically heritable) could not also be common within that localised subgroup?>>

Oh yes, I forced to “concede”! I refer you back to my first post today.

<<To put it more generally, in the higher classes, title marries title, money marries money, and brains marries brains … Whereas the marriage of high born females to low born men is socially unacceptable in the upper classes.>>

What era do you live in? The same one your debunked racist ideas come from, I suppose...

You’ve been talking about entire races, not classes (and brains do not always marry brains - what an absurd generalisation).

Continued…

…Continued

Nor do different classes gas or lock those with undesirable traits away and prevent them from breeding. This does not rescue you from your natural/artificial selection blunder, sorry.

<<It is very common for the most violent and psychotic male to murder his way to the top.>>

Which might explain why men are generally more aggressive than women. How, incidentally, do alleles, gene expression and chromosomes fit into these overly simplistic racial theories of yours? You seem to be disregarding them an awful lot.

<<It is hardly a "conspiracy theory" that the ABC and the humanities departments of universities are hotbeds of socialist advocacy.>>

Sheesh, now reds under the bed. Again, you ignore how universities got to where they are: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275086
I know what James Watson said too. And I don’t care what he’s accomplished either. That would be an argument from authority fallacy. He was famous for few stupid comments that had no evidentiary support.
<<…just like Galilieo before him, he was forced to recant what he said. But it wasn't enough, an intellectual fatwa was put on him and he was sacked anyway. >>

Then why has he continued to “recant” after leaving?

<<Now we get down to the premise that ethnic criminal behaviour is a figment of the public's imagination brought on by sensationalist news reporting.>>

Who’s premise? I certainly haven’t said that. I only vouched for the mountains of evidence supporting the media’s influence on the public’s perception of crime.

<<Surprisingly. you disagreed.>>

No, I didn’t. That would contradict what I’ve said about the effects of marginalisation. I did, however, suggest that it had been *exaggerated* by the media.

<<Are you seriously suggesting that the drive by killings in primarily the Arab areas of Sydney have always occurred?>>

No, and I’d doubt that’s what the paper that you’re referring to is suggesting either. Could you tell me which paper this is that you’re referring to so I can check it out? And again, did you check their sources and their sources too?

Continued…

…Continued

<<As being intimidated by your claim that you have all the facts…>>

The facts are for all of us. Some of us are just too lazy to look for them or would prefer to write them off as Leftist propaganda without investigating the sources to see if this really is the case.

<<…hey mate, I am just getting warmed up.>>

Well, I would certainly hope that was the case!

<<Please keep it up. I am really enjoying our exchanges.>>

I could almost detect a nervous giggle in this. How you could possibly be having fun here? None of your arguments have held so far and the only way you can continue to argue is to misrepresent what I’ve said and then respond to that instead. You haven’t had a hit yet. This is like watching someone completely unable to ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ despite having no blindfold on. Nothing I’ve said has been cryptic here.

<<Please post up your little "Strain Theory" so that I can amuse myself by poking holes in it>>

Brave words for someone who has not yet done any hole poking. Your need to ignore half of what I’m saying and then misrepresent the other half, use logical fallacies and resort to conspiracy theories - when I have had to do nothing of the sort - just to keep going, speaks volumes.

As for Strain Theory, It’s not “my little” theory. Again, this is not about me (your words here are an obvious and bitter snarl of contempt). Decades of research support it, so you’ll want to have done your homework before trying to poke holes in it. As you may be starting to realise now, uninformed common sense isn’t very useful. Basically though, it’s to do with our varying reactions in trying to live up to high standards of a society and acheive the valued goals within it (i.e. the American dream). So if everyone is poor, then the bar is lowered and poverty is unlikely to be as criminogenic. Keeping up with the Jones’s is very easy when they’re poor too.

Perhaps I should start by giving you a biology lesson related to genetics and Evolution?

Species evolve through time to become other species. But the change from species to species is not a sudden jump. What occurs, is that geographically separated populations of a particular species genetically diverge genetically so that the separate groups can adapt to the particular habitats in which each group is living. This intermediate stage is called a "subspecies". The subspecies is still a part of the species, but it has noticeable differences in heritable traits such as appearance, behaviour and intelligence.

Eventually a subspecies will evolve genetically so far away from the other subspecies (within the same species) that the two groups can no longer interbreed to produce fertile progeny. At that point the two subspecies become two different species.

"Subspecies" occur within every species of organism on Earth, including humans. They can be the result of natural selection or artificial selection (selective breeding.) Regardless of whether natural selection or artificial selection is used, genetic transfer of alleles controlling heritable traits such as body appearance and personality will take place. Genetic transfer of heritable traits is common to every organism on planet Earth.

It does not matter if humans are "culturally, socially, emotionally, or intellectually" a more sophisticated species. Both human beings and animals can pass on heritable traits like physical appearance and personality to their offspring.

Continued

Continued

Your premise is, that human subspecies differ so little in DNA that it is "unlikely" that personality can be transmitted, even though you have already conceded that criminologists know that there is a causal link to crime and genetics. Your premise also claims that only physical appearance can be passed on by genetic transfer, a premise you have not even attempted to validate.

My premise is, that human subspecies are no different to any other organism when it comes to the genetic transfer of heritable traits, which has caused geographically isolated subspecies to evolve differing appearances and personalities more attuned to the particular environments in which they have evolved. My validation example is brown bears. If brown bear species can have two or more subspecies with entirely differing personalities, because of their separate evolution within differing environments, then exactly the same principle must apply to separate subspecies of humans. Both brown bears and human Primates are mammals.

Therefore your premise, that numerous sub species of humans must all have identical personalities, identical levels of intelligence, and identical levels of proneness to crime, is a premise you have not bothered to validate, and it does not even conform to my understanding of high school level genetics. Your premise comes from a deeply felt egalitarian ideal common in academia which you have never questioned, and it clashes with a stubborn reality.

Continued

Continued

That ideal, implicit in many popular critiques of intelligence research, are that people are all born as equals, and that social inequalities and dysfunction can only be caused by racism, discrimination, prejudice, and unjust privilege.

The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are unequal in intellectual potential, not just within particular subspecies, but also between subspecies. They are born that way, just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess, and other heritable traits. Although subsequent experience and nurture shapes this material, no amount of social engineering or humanitarian philosophizing can make individuals from differing subspecies of humans with widely divergent mental aptitudes and physical features into intellectual or physical equals.

Now you are claiming that cultural factors as pre eminent in human behavior. Nature and nurture are both important to understanding human behaviors. But which factor takes precedence is different between individuals, and groups of individuals. An individual born with a genetic susceptibility to engage in extreme violence may not become violent, if he is submerged within a culture where violent behavior is very severely frowned upon. Conversely, a genetically violent person brought up within a violent culture where violent behavior is rewarded and praised, will almost certainly become extremely violent.

You are asking how this relates to Japanese? The unique Japanese personality is result of nature, nurture, and selective breeding. Japanese people are renowned for their law abiding natures and their cringing respect to authority, even to bloodthirsty tyrants. This has come about by the swift execution over millennia of anybody who dared talk back to the local Daimyo, as well as the fact that for thousands of years, the only punishment for crimes in Japan was execution.

That does not mean that crime does not exist. But in Japan crime is unique because it is almost an unofficial arm of the government. Yakuza criminals act within a traditional set of rules, because in Japan, tradition is important. The criminal class are the descendents of samurai ronin who still strictly adhere to traditional hierarchical values.

Continued

Continued

The crime of "arson" is practically unknown in Japan. This is because for thousands of years, Japanese cities and towns were constructed of very flammable bamboo and paper. Any firebug who was caught was executed along with his entire immediate family. This may seem a bit drastic, but it seems to have genetically eradicated from the Japanese genome whatever collection of genes is responsible for creating firebug personalities. Hey, you can't argue with success.

Japanese culture advocates obedience to authority, iron self control, rigid social conformity, and endurance of suffering. These cultural values are reinforced by a concept of shame which makes the Christian version look positively enlightened. Any person who violates the social harmony (or WU) will suffer the most appalling stigmatization.

Oh dear, reading further down your reply and you now seem to be advocating the idea that genetics has little bearing on criminal behavior at all. Drat. It looks like we are going to have to start educating you all over again. Are you studying Criminology in Waziristan University or Upper Topdoggia somewhere? I am only a bloody out of work electrician and I seem to know more about contemporary criminology than you do.

Did your uni course happen to mention that 95-97% of offenders in every nation are males? Would not that alone be a perfect example of genetic susceptibility to criminal behavior? What about age? Isn't it true that most short time inmates are young,? That criminality seems to be a form of social immaturity which criminals usually grow out of?

The principle that crime and genetics is connected is already a fact of life within the legal system. Very violent offenders can get reduced sentences if they show remorse and appeal to the court that they have an intrinsic problem which they find it difficult to control. Judges can recommend psychiatric treatment which usually involves sedating the person with powerful drugs like Prozac to help them keep their emotional equilibrium.

Continued

LEGO,

I thought we had already established that it was you who didn't understand evolution. You've been having a hell of a time trying to conflate natural selection and selective breeding.

<<Species evolve through time to become other species. But the change from species to species is not a sudden jump.>>

Precisely. Which is why the category of 'subspecies' is still not agreed upon by scientists, and the fact that subspecies can produce fertile offspring suggests that it probably never will be. The point at which one subspecies becomes another is impossible to pin down.

This, too, contradicts your philosophy, which requires that subspecies to be distinct and static to have any meaning. What about hybrids? According to your philosophy, they can never really belong. They’ll only ever be ‘two halves’ and never a ‘whole’ because you have this flawed idea that subspecies and "races" are so distinct.

If you think this is all so easy to pin down, then tell me what the precise difference is between two species that cannot produce offspring and two that can only produce sterile offspring? The notion of species is difficult enough to define and you think you've got subspecies all figured? How long does a group have to be isolated before they’re considered a subspecies? How many generations does it take for one subspecies to give birth to another? You simply cannot recognise just how dynamic the concept of "races" and subspecies are. What about Neanderthals? Were they a race? A subspecies of humans? Or a different species all together? We COULD breed with them after all. Three per cent of our DNA is Neanderthal DNA.

Even with just the rape that was rampant in primitive times, our less systematic methods of finding mates (compared with animal breeders), the speed at which we've moved around the planet and conquered foreign lands, and the continual mutations and ever-changing variation from generation-to-generation, it would be extremely difficult for a particular type of personality to become genetically ingrained into a "race" given the fickleness and fragility of our brains and their delicate chemical balances.

Continued…

...Continued

Yet you insist that the vague and highly generalised similarities that we see within different "races" definitely must be genetic, despite geneticists finding no evidence for this, and overwhelming evidence (collated over the last 150 or so years) demonstrating strong cultural, parental, peer, psychological and sociological influences.

<<It does not matter if humans are "culturally, socially, emotionally, or intellectually" a more sophisticated species. Both human beings and animals can pass on heritable traits like physical appearance and personality to their offspring.>>

So your logic here is that just because humans can genetically pass on personality traits, then it must necessarily follow that the other influences don't matter at all.

Hmmm...

I think it's time you started explaining how the heritability of personality traits is so powerful that it can override all the other influencing factors, and over entire populations at that!

<<Your premise is, that human subspecies differ so little in DNA that it is "unlikely" that personality can be transmitted...>>

No, it’s not. And I've just clarified this - yet again.

Strike one!

<<...even though you have already conceded that criminologists know that there is a causal link to crime and genetics.>>

I like how you keep saying "conceded" as if I had initially resisted this. But hey, if you haven't made any headway, then you can at least word your posts to make it look like you have, I guess.

They don't "know" this either, by the way.

<<Your premise also claims that only physical appearance can be passed on by genetic transfer, a premise you have not even attempted to validate.>>

That's because I've never claimed it. Your preceding sentence even acknowledges this, for crying out loud.

Strike two!

<<My premise is, that human subspecies are no different to any other organism when it comes to the genetic transfer of heritable traits...>>

Yeah, I already addressed this yesterday. The only justification you've given so far is your assertion that other influences don't matter simply because personality traits can be heritable.

You mention mammalia again too. Why doesn't what you're saying apply to other classes?

Continued…

...Continued

<<Therefore your premise, that numerous sub species of humans must all have identical personalities, identical levels of intelligence...>>

Strike three! You're out.

Your next two paragraphs almost support what I've been saying by acknowledging that cultural factors can override possible genetic factors. But you still insist that when deviant behaviour occurs, it's definitely got to be genetic. You're picking and choosing when nature or culture/nurture apply when it suits you and to hell with the evidence.

As for the Japanese, I don't have much of a problem with what you're saying except for the bits about them selectively breeding, and eliminating the penchant for arson from their gene pool. Do you have any evidence for this?

<<Oh dear, reading further down your reply and you now seem to be advocating the idea that genetics has little bearing on criminal behavior at all.>>

I like how you make it sound like I'm chopping and changing my position. You did this earlier too by starting one of your previous paragraphs with, "Now you are claiming that cultural factors..." But hey, like I said before, if you can't make any headway...

Anyway, I didn't claim that. I simply said that the evidence is weak. I have remained consistent.

<<Are you studying Criminology in Waziristan University or Upper Topdoggia somewhere?>>

Why does it surprise you so much that you disagree? Isn't it all an elaborate ploy, anyway? A wink and a nod that somehow no-one blows the whistle on or ever let’s anything slip about? Like the Bush Administration’s involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

<<I am only a bloody out of work electrician and I seem to know more about contemporary criminology than you do.>>

Yes, and fact that you don't know about strain theory, the known links between genetics and crime, psychological neutralisation, the media's effect on the public's perception of crime and the percentage of male offenders to female are really good indicators of that too.

<<Did your uni course happen to mention that 95-97% of offenders in every nation are males?>>

It's actually 75-80% in Australia.

Continued…

...Continued

And we can't accurately compare that to every other country because reporting rates and recording methods differ everywhere.

<<Would not that alone be a perfect example of genetic susceptibility to criminal behavior?>>

When comparing males and females, it's more useful to talk about sex than genetics. You don’t hear criminologists or news reports speak of, ‘those with male genes’. Also, it doesn’t then follow that the same could be said for “races”, as you’re trying to get at. Sexes and “races” are two very different things. All subspecies need both sexes, but the sexes don’t need all subspecies.

<<What about age? Isn't it true that most short time inmates are young,? That criminality seems to be a form of social immaturity which criminals usually grow out of?>>

That's a PART of the explanation for THEIR criminality. They also predominantly come from low socioeconomic backgrounds (parents under financial strain tend not to engage with their kids as much) and are not employed full-time. There are multiple factors on both a micro and macro level, and no one theory explains everything. It’s more a complex flowchart of combined theories. This doesn’t help your racial theories, though.

As for your last paragraph, none of what you said supports a genetic link specifically.

Finally, I just want to revisit your conspiracy theory for a moment because I'm not satisfied with my last response. It's true that humanities departments in universities can be hotbeds for socialist advocacy. But when studies tend to disprove so many of the beliefs of social conservatives, it’s naturally not going to attract as many conservatives in general. They were once there in greater numbers, remember, until the evidence eventually discredited many of their views. Now they just bitch and moan from the sidelines.

As for the ABC, I'm always suspicious of the criticisms there. It seems that those who accuse them of bias would be quite content for it to become another Fox News. At least the ABC usually goes with the evidence. Stations like Fox News, on the other hand, just make it all up as they please.

If you are having difficulty understanding what the terms "species", "subspecies" and "hybrids" mean, Mr Phillips, I suggest that perhaps high school level genetics may be beyond you?

As for your claim that scientists can find no evidence of genetic differences between races, are you seriously suggesting that there is no recognisable genetic difference between a Zulu and a Scandinavian? Are you seriously suggesting that a pathologist scientist can not tell the difference between an African skeleton and an Asian skeleton? Your premise sounds like propaganda to me. And I will bet that you have no idea at all from where that BS originated.

I thought we were making some progress, but your logic seems to keep meandering. First, you correctly claimed (page 9) that "nature and nurture shapes human behaviour". Bingo. Well done, Mr Phillips. This meant that you understood that underlying human personality could be heritable. Then you claimed that whereas selectively bred animals could transfer behavioural traits, this could not happen with humans, because we were not selectively bred and that humans were too "sophisticated" . You had flip flopped to saying that only nurture shapes human behaviour.

My response was, to explain that genetic transfer of heritable traits occurs with every organism on Earth, and humans were not immune to evolution. As for the idea that the transfer of heritable traits could only occur within selective breeding, that was demonstrably wrong. I gave a clear example of the naturally selected Grizzly Bear to demolish your argument.

Next you mindboggingly claimed (page 10) that "Yes, there does appear to be a genetic factor to criminality" and "criminologists recognise a genetic factor to criminal behaviour". You added that you were studying Criminology. But in your last post you claimed that "they don't know this." Now, either you agree with your educated graduate peers, or you don't. You can not claim that behaviour is heritable when you want to, and then deny it when it suits you. You can not concede a point, and then deny it later on.

Continued

Continued

Now, if you and your criminologist peers "recognise a genetic factor to criminality" then you had better keep your mouths shut. Because eminent scientists who have made the same conclusion have suffered from the wrath of those to whom the idea that all races are absolutely equal in every possible way, is their holy dogma. Professor William Shockley was routinely run out of universities by jeering crowds of university students, for daring to publically say what every cognitive metrician already knew, that African people had a lower bell curve of intelligence than Europeans.

Along comes the Human Genome Project, and the head of that prestigious organisation is a scientist of Galilean stature, James Watson. Watson is another scientist who apparently knows what "a race" is. I presume that the Human Genome Project scientists apparently identified the genetic alleles which made individuals prone to criminal behaviour. That is a reasonable assumption, because the project members next tried to initiate a convention at Maryland University called "Genetic Factors in Crime". This had to be cancelled when minority organisations in the USA launched a firestorm of criticism against the National Institute of Health who sponsored the conference.

Now this is interesting, because you, my dear Mr Phillips, claim that scientists can not find any direct evidence of any grouping of genes on a human genome that will make an individual prone to criminal behaviour. The irony is, that it is your side of the table that is suppressing the discussion of scientific evidence which would prove either way, just who is right or wrong. Although, from the title of the conference, I think we know who's side the Human Genome Project scientists would be on in this debate.

What happened next to Watson is instructive of any scientist who dares to oppose the prevailing religious dogma that every race is equal. You asked me why Watson is still recanting his previous statements? Because he has already experienced what will happen to him if he does not.

Continued

Continued

You keep insisting that my premise is, that genetics is the only factor in human behaviour, and that "other influences don't matter at all". I have never said this, and I agreed with you that both nature and nurture acted in concert to create human personalities. To clarify again. . All races have people who are genetically prone to criminal behaviour. Such people are not real bright, display impulsive and irresponsible behaviour, lack empathy for others, and they are very prone to violence. But some races, (or ethnicities, or breeds, or subspecies of humans), are very disproportionately susceptable to criminal behaviour, and so it is reasonable to presume that they have a higher proportion of people with this genetic predisposition than others.

Since low intelligence and criminal behaviour are linked, and since some races (or ethnicities, or breeds or subspecies) have generally low intelligence, the premise seems to fit.

Next we get a chicken and egg scenario with nurture. What comes first? Egalitarians claim that ethnic dysfunction is solely a product of discrimination, poverty, lack of opportunity, racism, and denied privilege. But if a race of people exist who are not real bright, exhibit impulsive attention seeking behaviour, are aggressive, and are much more prone to criminality than others, then does this not explain racism, discrimination, and a lack of opportunity? Especially, if this race adopts a culture of violence evidenced in the execrable "rap" music which extols the pleasures of drugs, rape, misogyny, violence, criminality, and racism towards whites?

If culture plays a very significant part in moulding the basic underlying personality, then it is hardly surprising that so many black people are violent and engage in criminality, when the culture they created and prefer to live under is so violent and anti social.

Anyhoo, I am off to Bateman's Bay tomorrow, so I am sorry but this debate must end today. I will be deliriously happy to debate you again on this subject, but I must withdraw tonight for family reasons.

Thank you for a stimulating debate. Looks like you get the closing argument. (drat)

This has been fascinating to watch, LEGO. You've always presented yourself as an intelligent and knowledgeable man; a formidable debater who is a force to be reckoned with. Yet in reality, your arguments are so rehearsed that as soon as someone takes the time to pull you off your tracks, you seem to glitch and malfunction.

<<If you are having difficulty understanding what the terms "species", "subspecies" and "hybrids" mean...>>

Au contraire, LEGO, it is because I apparently understand them better than you that I was able to ask such questions. Your philosophy requires that you generalise and maintain simplistic notions of these - the point I was getting at when I spoke of your apparent philosophy in my posts yesterday.

<<As for your claim that scientists can find no evidence of genetic differences between races, are you seriously suggesting that there is no recognisable genetic difference between a Zulu and a Scandinavian?>>

No, because I have never claimed that. I even mentioned a 0.02% difference at the beginning. Eighty-five percent of genetic variation can be found within a single community alone.

<<I thought we were making some progress, but your logic seems to keep meandering. First, you correctly claimed (page 9) that "nature and nurture shapes human behaviour". Bingo.>>

That was actually page 8, and it was one of the first things I'd said to you on this thread after never having denied it - not even through implication - so what do you mean by "bingo"? Again you are wording your posts to create a false impression of what's happening here. Do you think that the audience that you have been so focused on are silly enough to fall for that?

By the way, if you're going to use quotation marks, then it's only appropriate that you quote me directly.

<<Then you claimed that whereas selectively bred animals could transfer behavioural traits, this could not happen with humans, because we were not selectively bred and that humans were too "sophisticated"...>>

That’s not quite what I’ve said. I even mentioned a study that indicates that this happens.

Continued...

...Continued

My remarks that you’re referring to were in relation to entire groups. And I have never said, “could not”.

It's bad enough that you misconstrue what I say to keep yourself in the race, but when you do it to accuse me of flip flopping and meandering, then that's just rude.

<<My response was, to explain that genetic transfer of heritable traits occurs with every organism on Earth, and humans were not immune to evolution.>>

Now you're misquoting yourself! Firstly, you only mentioned mammalia for some unexplained reason; and secondly, you were specifically referring to personality traits.

<<As for the idea that the transfer of heritable traits could only occur within selective breeding, that was demonstrably wrong.>>

It certainly would be had somebody said that.

<<Next you mindboggingly claimed (page 10) that "Yes, there does appear to be a genetic factor to criminality" and "criminologists recognise a genetic factor to criminal behaviour". You added that you were studying Criminology. But in your last post you claimed that "they don't know this.">>

Damn. Just when I thought you were getting your quoting right, you wreck it at the end there by deliberately omitting the quotation marks around "know". I don't know about you, but most people tend not to claim to know something unless it's beyond any doubt. Especially scientists.

Regarding William Shockley, he was an advocate for eugenics; a discredited social philosophy.

<<Now this is interesting, because you ... claim that scientists can not find any direct evidence of any grouping of genes on a human genome that will make an individual prone to criminal behaviour. The irony is, that it is your side of the table that is suppressing the discussion of scientific evidence which would prove either way, just who is right or wrong.>>

Aside from the points I made in my first paragraph (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724 (highlighting how extremely unlikely it would be that we’d find a specific gene)), you ignore the fact that there are massive ethical issues and dangers in looking for such genes - especially if you want to link them to specific groups.

Continued…

...Continued

Despite the fact that we already have socioeconomic, nutritional and cultural explanations for the differences in IQ, and far more for criminal behaviour, you just want to find a genetic link. Why? You still haven’t explained what doing this will achieve, or how it would negate the ethical concerns, for that matter. It just sounds like you need to feel better about yourself, or want to maintain a rage.

<<You asked me why Watson is still recanting his previous statements?>>

No, I asked you why he continued to recant despite already having been fired already.

<<You keep insisting that my premise is, that genetics is the only factor in human behaviour, and that "other influences don't matter at all".>>

Not at all. In fact, it was just yesterday that I acknowledged your take on the 'nurture' side of the argument. What you have quoted of me, however, was a one-off occasion of me paraphrasing something you had said in order to highlight the flawed logic in it.

Thanks for the clarification of your position. It confirmed that I understood it perfectly. All was going in well, too, until I got to this bit...

<<But some races ... are very disproportionately susceptable to criminal behaviour, and so it is reasonable to presume that they have a higher proportion of people with this genetic predisposition than others.>>

Ah, the dangers of relying on common sense. The first thing they warn you about and demonstrate in sociology.

Firstly, given the overwhelming evidence surrounding marginalisation, until we can see how Caucasians would react when they are the minorities, we cannot possibly draw this conclusion. That's not to say that you're wrong necessarily. But the time to believe something is when we have evidence. Even if some are preventing research proving that you're right, that in itself does not suggest that you are. It is, however, very unlikely that you're right - given what we currently know - and I, again, refer you back to my first paragraph on this thread.

Continued…

...Continued

All you have at this point is a hunch, based on generalisations and oversimplifications, that ignores a ton of other factors that are supported by mountains of evidence.

<<Since low intelligence and criminal behaviour are linked, and since some races (or ethnicities, or breeds or subspecies) have generally low intelligence, the premise seems to fit.>>

It's just as well you get to the chicken-and-egg problem next.

<<Next we get a chicken and egg scenario with nurture. What comes first? Egalitarians claim that ethnic dysfunction is solely a product of discrimination, poverty, lack of opportunity, racism, and denied privilege.>>

Egalitarians usually would, yes; with a lot of evidence to suggest they're right, granted. There are some, like myself, who prefer to follow the evidence; are happy to accept evidence that goes against their belief if it's solid; and don't cling to cherished ideas like those who have a belief system do. Not getting too emotionally attached to a belief is something Carl Sagan warns about in The Demon Haunted World, when discussing his baloney detection kit.

The problem with your next two paragraphs is that they don't really do anything to address the chicken-and-egg conundrum. Hardly surprising, I suppose, given that only genetic evidence for a propensity towards dysfunction within an entire group would.

<<If culture plays a very significant part in moulding the basic underlying personality, then it is hardly surprising that so many black people are violent and engage in criminality, when the culture they created and prefer to live under is so violent and anti social.>>

But did they create it, or did America's history help lay it down for them? Using America as an example here doesn't exactly do your argument any favors, given their history.

Have fun in Batemans Bay and I hope your family are alright. Next time, though, I hope you keep up with the discussion a little better and address my actual arguments rather than avoiding or misinterpreting them when they reveal the problems in making generalisations or over-simplifying this issue.

Well, so far I have A.J. Phillips winning convincingly in this epic encounter of banality. Seriously, race theory belongs in the 19th century and earlier. There is only one 'race'...the human race. Arguing for any sort of 'racial' superiority, or inferiority, is what allowed slavery and subjugation to thrive. In Australia it resulted in over 150 years of believing Aboriginal people had no culture and incapable of adapting to new ways (which in most cases were forced upon them). The only reason 'race' became a means of putting people into a particular category was because the early European explorers needed a means of classifying people different to themselves culturally and in appearance. They had no idea about human evolution and regional adaptation.

Ok people, this is getting tedious. Give it up and give us all a break!

Hi Mr Phillips, I'm b-a-a-a-ck! (Got held up)

OK, so firstly, I would like to point that I am happy with my responses. As an experienced debater, I can see that you are fumbling along by trying out the usual tricks that people use who have no idea what they are talking about.

The question is, whether races are equal or unequal. I have been submitting reasoned arguments as to why they are unequal, and addressing as many as your points as I can within the accursed 350 word rule. Any impartial observer can see that I have no problem with replying at length to you.

Your replies are very bad. Where you have managed to submit a disjointed sentence or two which might explain why races are equal, you have twice now been caught contradicting yourself. The rest of your posts are typical of the poor debater, and consist of deny, deny, deny, everything, and cutting up my posts into sentences and replying with sneery one liners. These are interspersed with a multitude of questions, (including demanding that I even give word definitions) which of course is calculated to keep me off balance by making me do all the work.

Nice try, but I have seen it all before.

Now, I find it difficult to debate people who change their views and then have the nerve to claim that they have not. So, I would like you to state your position on these matters.

1. Do you agree that both nature and nurture shape human behaviour?
2. Do you agree with your Criminologist peers that genetics and crime are linked?

These are fair and simple questions that can be answered with one word. If you answer "yes" to both questions, it means that you appreciate that behaviour is heritable.

If you write "no". then please give us an explanation as to why you think that behaviour can not be heritable, and why you think that genetics does not play any part. I need to know where you stand so that I can start backing you into a corner

Q1. Do you agree that both nature and nurture shape human behaviour?

Q2. Do you agree with your Criminologist peers that genetics and crime are linked?

A1. Yes.

A2. No.

Linking crime and "racial" tags contribute to ongoing mis-understanding between causal differences and coincidental factors.

Causal factors result in deviant behavior.

Co-incidental factors do not cause result in deviant behavior.

Which specific genes pre-dispose an individual to a higher risk of incorrect behavior ?

Are these specific genes specific to a particular "racial" group ?

Small genetic differences, may pre-dispose individuals towards non-conventional thinking, understanding, impulses, which may result in deviant behavior.

Study of genetic identification of different people suggests specific differences between "races" appears not to pre-dispose any "racial" group to greater criminality.

(Some interesting cases, with associated research, concerning arguments for existence of a pre-disposition to commit murder, with the arguments rejected by the courts.)

Genetic differences between individuals appear larger within than between "racial" groups.

Until identify specific recognizable genetic factors which clearly demonstrate an increase in criminality, genetic differences unlikely to be regarded as relevant.

A known significant influence for criminal behavior is lower education standards, lower perceptions of actions and consequences.

Dear Mr Phillips.

You spent all of your previous four pages of "debate" simply picking apart every sentence I said and finding something, anything, to throw back at me. You speak in implications instead of just making plain statements which you may have to justify and defend, and then you wail that you are being misunderstood. About the only thing that I could find in your 1100 word post which vaguely resembled an argument, was where you repeated your concern about the "massive ethical issues and dangers" in looking for a genetic link to behaviour, a theme that apparently strikes a chord with you because this is the third time you have brought it up.

By saying this, you appear to be claiming that there is no link between genetics and behaviour (why can't you just say it outright?) and it is "dangerous" to even suggest that it exists. Well, to start with, it does exist. So whatever problems the human race has with the truth is up to the human race to deal with. Galileo's dismantling of the Aristotelian view of the universe had "massive ethical issues and dangers" for the existing social order but that it was hardly a reason to shut Galileo up.

Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" involved "massive ethical issues and dangers" to the existing order, but that is no reason to suppress science. Darwin lived at a time where even suggesting that God did not create Man constituted the crime of "blasphemy", so he had to be careful. He wrote "Origin of Species" in such a way that he could claim that God created evolution.

Here we are 150 years down the track and we are still denying what our smartest scientists are saying because people like you think that it is too dangerous to tell the truth. And we are censuring them, hounding them out of their jobs, chasing them out of their universities, shouting them down in their lecture rooms, and closing their scientific conferences. We are marching into the future backwards with our ideological blinkers on because the truth hurts our ears.

Wednesday morning and Still here Mr Phillips.

Now, scrolling down through you last rant, I notice that your desperation to blame nurture over nature for black dysfunction, has led you to a novel interpretation as to why the culture of young, black men is so violent and racist. Unsurprisingly, you have reverted to your customary racist bias and you are seriously blaming the creation of violent black culture on whites. This reflexive compulsion of people like yourself to always think up far fetched explanations to blame white people for black dysfunction is the sole reason why I stopped believing in the socialist egalitarian worldview and started thinking straight.

Your logic goes like this, white people have treated black people so badly in the USA that it is only natural that blacks have a culture which extols the pleasures of misogyny, drug abuse, violence, and racist attacks on whites. There are a couple of points wrong with that.

The first is, that the same trouble prone ethnicities that inhabit the USA are noted for their very high rates of criminality in every nation they infest. The arrival of African and Islander people in particular to advanced societies is a recent phenomenon that occurred during a period when racial toleration was all the rage. Even within their own homeland countries where white people are not oppressing, discriminating, or making them sit at the back of the bus, African and Islander people have rates of serious criminal behaviour comparable to their rates in western countries.

On that logic, since white people in the USA are very disproportionately the victims of violent crime committed by blacks than the reverse, I suppose you would forgive a country and Western singer singing songs about how he hates blacks, and why they should be exterminated? But one could imagine the furore which would entail if he did. Yet black "rap" groups routinely produce songs inciting racial hatred and violence against whites, and not only do they a get a free pass, people like yourself even try to blame the victims of this culture for creating that culture.

It’s alright, LEGO. You can drop the act now. I suspected you weren’t really leaving anyway.

<<I can see that you are fumbling along by trying out the usual tricks that people use who have no idea what they are talking about.>>

You've tried to attribute a couple of ‘tricks’ to me already but as I had clearly demonstrated, they were simply failures on your behalf to understand. I will remind you, again, that it has only been you who has needed to resort to fallacies and misinterpretations of what I've said. When one of us is continuously correcting the other, while the other simply moves on to a different misinterpretation as if nothing had happened, it's pretty clear where the problem lies.

<<The question is, whether races are equal or unequal.>>

In what way? That's a pretty broad question. If you want to generalise (of course you do), then on a physical appearance level, “races” are clearly not the same. So naturally, on a physical ability level, each will have its strengths and its weaknesses. It's even possible that they’re not all mentally equal either, but given all I've said on this, you'd really be pushing it uphill trying to isolate genetics to attribute to the differences here. So far, the best you've provided are presumptions plucked from generalisations, over-simplifications and ignorance of the broader picture. I also think you may be misinterpreting some when they say we should be *respected* as equals.

Your next four paragraphs repeat accusations that I’ve already shown to be incorrect; complete with ad hominem attacks. Another fallacy to add to the list. You're getting desperate.

<<Any impartial observer can see that I have no problem with replying at length to you.>>

Well yeah, anyone could reply at length if they misconstrue enough. It's the content that counts, and any impartial observer would understand this.

<<Your replies are very bad. Where you have managed to submit a disjointed sentence or two which might explain why races are equal...>>

Some examples would be nice, not to mention polite, given the extent of the charges.

Continued…

…Continued

<<...you have twice now been caught contradicting yourself.>>

Both alleged contradictions were shown to merely be you misconstruing what I had said and were corrected here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275085,
and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275300.

In light of the above corrections that I have highlighted, I think it's now fair to say that you have just lied. In the name of civility, I have tried to overlook your continual dishonesty on this thread, but it's getting a bit much now. Take your next paragraph, for example…

<<The rest of your posts are typical of the poor debater, and consist of deny, deny, deny, everything...>>

I haven't denied anything without providing evidence for my rejection of what you have said. This is evident in your prompt dropping of your accusations/claims and moving on to others.

<<...and cutting up my posts into sentences and replying with sneery one liners...>>

One-liners, eh? My responses to that which I had quoted of you averaged 3.4 sentences in my last set of posts, with the maximum being eight. That's a lot of evasive sneer, jokes and wit to cram into four posts.

My "cutting up" of your posts is done to demonstrate thoroughness in my replies, and remove any doubt that I may be conveniently dodging an important point that you've made. It's actually a sign of a very good debater.

As for your first post yesterday, it relied entirely on myself and others not remembering what exactly I've said and so you portray my quoting of your posts as a negative in order to reply with yet another false accusation in the hope that you can bring what I say into disrepute.

<<...These are interspersed with a multitude of questions, (including demanding that I even give word definitions) … calculated to keep me off balance by making me do all the work.>>

Firstly, most of my questions are rhetorical questions used only to get a point across, and if that wasn't obvious enough to you, then the fact that I have only pushed for an answer to one of my questions should have been yet another hint.

Continued…

…Continued

Secondly, I have made no demands of you whatsoever, and I have not asked that you define anything. I have, however, suggested that you look-up the definitions of several words for your own benefit (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274737).

Now to your questions… I know where you're going with them. I was going to give you further clarifications to my answers to assist you, but when I read your comment arrogantly assuming that you're going to pin me into a corner, I figured it would be more fun to give you the simple answers you're requesting and watch you try.

Oh, and please do me the courtesy of quoting me word-for-word when you try to claim that I'm contradicting myself. You can press CTRL+F and type keywords to make my comments easier to find. Accusing me of speaking in implications won't help either, because you can expose any alleged implications by outlining the context of the quote, or by mentioning my quote of yours that I was responding to at the time.

<<1. Do you agree that both nature and nurture shape human behaviour?>>

Yes.

<<2. Do you agree with your Criminologist peers that genetics and crime are linked?>>

This question is flawed because it doesn’t take into account the fact that there are instances in which they may not be linked. We’re all potential offenders, given the right combination of circumstances and opportunities. Rational choice theory touches on this.

With that in mind, I’ll say, yes.

<<You spent all of your previous four pages of "debate" simply picking apart every sentence I said and finding something, anything, to throw back at me.>>

Yes, it was very thorough of me, wasn't it. But the fact that I only just crammed it into four posts wasn’t exactly indicative of someone scraping around for just anything to say, though, was it.

<<You speak in implications instead of just making plain statements which you may have to justify and defend, and then you wail that you are being misunderstood.>>

Everything I have said has been crystal clear.

Continued…

…Continued

If you lack the sophistication to follow ideas that go beyond simple black and white notions (as is evident in your earlier request for clarification), then I cannot be blamed for that.

You are simply trying to cover your tracks by making out as if I had at least implied every misinterpretation of yours, thus turning your dishonesty or lack of comprehension back onto me. I don't think it's merely a co-incidence, either, that you have not provided a specific example. My alleged implications are starting to look like a product of your own paranoid delusions.

<<By [bringing up massive ethical issues and dangers], you appear to be claiming that there is no link between genetics and behaviour (why can't you just say it outright?) and it is "dangerous" to even suggest that it exists.>>

And here you're at it again. It didn't take long, did it. This is a prime example of the fact that it is your dishonesty or lack of comprehension and not any implication on my part. What a bizarre non sequitur this is that you’ve attributed to me. You try to get away with this by switching back-and-forth between genetics in general, and “race” specific genetics, when it suites you.

<<Galileo's dismantling of the Aristotelian view of the universe had "massive ethical issues and dangers" for the existing social order...>>

Such as?

<<Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" involved "massive ethical issues and dangers" to the existing order...>>

Understanding evolution has benefitted us immensely, and we already know the negative impacts of racial theories. You have still not provided any benefits to proving your racial theories, and until you do, this is yet another false analogy.

I see, in your most recent post, that you have now 'glitched' back to your old discredited allegation of racism on the behalf of anti-racists again (which I have addressed multiple times now (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275039, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274737)) and all for a long stretch of the bow in attempting to attribute flawed logic to me too. Again, all of which I have clarified for you in the past.

Nice going.

Hi Mr Phillips, I'm back from BB and rearin' to go.

First, I would like to address the charge levelled at me that I am "lying" about your responses. I tend to write in specifics through reasoned arguments, while you tend to write very short paragraphs which usually just attack everything I have written. In such cases, it is easy for me to misunderstand your position and even misconstrue it, because I am fully occupied trying to work out exactly where you are coming from. And when I read what appear to be contradictions in your logic, I do not accuse you of lying, I just figure that you are a bit mixed up.

Reading back over your responses, I would like to summarise your position as I understand it, by linking together your disjointed and often contradictory quotes, which give some hazy indication of what your position is. I know I am going to get criticised for getting it wrong. But since you are not inclined to submit a paragraph or two of reasoned argument detailing by what logic you come to your own conclusions, somebody has to do it.

Your position appears to be, that the concept that race is genetically unsubstantiated, therefore no genetic argument which claims that race and crime are linked could be valid. You concede that genetics has a role in criminal behaviour, but that it's effect is utterly insignificant to environmental factors. These environmental factors are "marginalisation, cultural displacement, poverty, lack of resources, religion, lack of social forces, and lack of education."

You claim that it is "unscientific" to claim that "entire people" can be "assessed for intelligence personality traits." You deny intelligence and genetics are linked. You deny the accuracy of IQ testing, suggesting that the differences between IQ's can be explained by "socio-economic, nutritional, and cultural explanations.

Lastly, you Claim that the very disproportionate differences in criminal behaviour between the sexes and between age groups has no basis in genetics.

continued

continued.

Perhaps even more extraordinary, you are once again demanding that I should justify "what benefits" my position has to social harmony. That is an incredible position for a person like yourself to take, who is studying a scientific discipline. Since when does science suppress the truth to conform to social orthodoxy ? I think that you are in the wrong scientific discipline. Perhaps becoming a Climate Scientist would make you more comfortable with massaging the facts to conform to reality.

Now, if I have got any of your positions wrong, could you please indicate which ones they are, and give a reasonably detailed explanation as to what you position is on that particular matter, and how you came to that conclusion?

Thanking you.

Your obedient slave

LEGO.

Once again, LEGO, you have utterly failed, and it's all your own doing.

<<First, I would like to address the charge levelled at me that I am "lying" about your responses. I tend to write in specifics through reasoned arguments, while you tend to write very short paragraphs which usually just attack everything I have written.>>

Yet another untruth and your inability, once again, to provide examples speaks volumes. My responses have only just recently started to become shorter and sharper due to the fact that I have already adequately addressed your arguments several times before and so I am able to refer you back to what I have already said. You need only check one of the links in this response of mine to see the dishonesty of this claim. Anything from me that has come close to an "attack" only started after your recent attempts to bring what I've said into disrepute with ad hominems. So your excuse of trying to work out where I'm coming from doesn't work.

<<And when I read what appear to be contradictions in your logic, I do not accuse you of lying, I just figure that you are a bit mixed up.>>

Of course you don't. A simple contradiction appears much more innocent than repeating an accusation - that had already been corrected - in a post filled with what can only be described as an attempt to bring the words of another into disrepute.

<<Reading back over your responses, I would like to summarise your position as I understand it ... I know I am going to get criticised for getting it wrong.>>

Well, I requested direct quotes to avoid this sort of thing, and despite the alleged shortness and sharpness of my responses, I even went to the extent of explaining how you can do this with the least effort in involved (so please don't play the wounded deer with me). Yet despite my efforts, you still don't provide quotes because you know your tricks won't work then.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Your position appears to be, that the concept that race is genetically unsubstantiated...>>

No, more that it's genetically insignificant and that "race" is more of a cultural construct (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724).

<<...therefore no genetic argument which claims that race and crime are linked could be valid.>>

Not quite. I have explained this multiple times here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275228, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275037, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275166.

<<You concede that genetics has a role in criminal behaviour, but that it's effect is utterly insignificant to environmental factors.>>

Here you go again with my alleged "concessions", even though I have corrected this twice already. You need to manage your language a little better. That aside, this is mostly correct, though I wouldn't go as far as to say "utterly". Remember the studies involving adoptees?

<<These environmental factors are "marginalisation, cultural displacement, poverty, lack of resources, religion, lack of social forces, and lack of education.">>

There is also the fragility and pliability of our brains and their chemistry.

<<You claim that it is "unscientific" to claim that "entire people" can be "assessed for intelligence personality traits.">>

Assessed for intelligence personality traits? Is this your idea of quoting? I said that it is unscientific to ASCRIBE intelligence personality traits to entire groups.

<<You deny intelligence and genetics are linked.>>

Here's that sneaky trick of yours again in which you switch back-and-forth between heritability in general and race-specific heritability. You've now ditched the concept of race to lead to a false conclusion regarding what I've said.

That aside, I've even said it was possible at one point (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275386). I have merely pointed out the improbability of it and the difficulties in isolating genetics amongst entire groups (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275087).

<<You deny the accuracy of IQ testing...>>

Yes, and so do those who conduct them. The fact that IQ tests are culture-specific doesn't help with comparisons either.

<<...suggesting that the differences between IQ's can be explained by "socio-economic, nutritional, and cultural explanations.>>

There is some evidence for this, yes. It's likely they both play a role. Probably to varying degrees for each individual case too.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Lastly, you Claim that the very disproportionate differences in criminal behaviour between the sexes and between age groups has no basis in genetics.>>

No, I didn't. I simply explained why it does not necessarily follow that criminality can then be applied to “races”, while pointing out the various other factors that you were overlooking. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275231).

<<Perhaps even more extraordinary, you are once again demanding that I should justify "what benefits" my position has to social harmony.>>

Again I have demanded nothing. You threw that in for effect. I have also said nothing about social harmony. You made that bit up. I have simply requested that you point to any benefits at all. They don't have to have harmonising effects. This is merely another sidestep from you and a twisting of what I have said, done in order to attribute a motive to me that doesn't exist.

<<Now, if I have got any of your positions wrong, could you please indicate which ones they are, and give a reasonably detailed explanation as to what you position is on that particular matter, and how you came to that conclusion?>>

I've gone one better by linking you back to what I had originally said as well.

It would really help if you'd quote me next time too. But I guess if you did, then that would make it impossible to manipulate and contort the discussion in your favour and attribute motives to me that don't exist.

You should ask yourself why it is that you need to do that.

Mr Phillips, I am still trying to engage you in reasonable debate, but you have now resorted to personnel abuse and stonewalling. That tells me that you are in trouble.

I have read back through your replies and made an honest effort to understand your position. In my last post, I have submitted what I think are your main points, and asked you to correct me if my interpretation was wrong. That is fair and reasonable. But you have no intention of returning my courtesy and correcting any misconceptions I may have about your position, by simply stating plainly ( and with courtesy) what your main points are. You appear to understand that talking in implications means that you can never be pinned down and cornered, and I believe that is now one of your tactics to avoid focussing on the issues and losing.

Anyway, I presume that you will continue to pick apart my posts, line by line, and complaining about every nuance in the meaning in every word I write, instead of debating. That's OK. Any impartial observer would know that you are heckling and not debating. Since you will not simply clarify what your position is, I will continue to debate with you using what I think is your position. Feel free to correct me if you object to my interpretation of what I think is your point. But don't just say "that is not my position" in a tone of moral outrage, without simply writing a paragraph explaining and clarifying what your position is. And I have no intention of clicking on "links" which simply display a page where once again, I am expected to divine what your position is from your vague and often contradictory statements, only to have you sneer that I have got it wrong again.

I repeat, that if you think I am misunderstanding your position, then simply correct it by stating clearly what your position is.

If you are afraid of engaging in debate, what are you doing here? You may as well just concede defeat as to continue this charade

I will start by attacking your first point, that racial differences are genetically "insignificant",

The African Buffalo species is a species of non domesticatable cattle which are divided into five sub species. All of these sub species are dangerous, but the Cape Buffalo is especially dangerous. The Cape Buffalo is so dangerous and unpredictable in its behaviour, that game hunters consider it as one of the "big five" of dangerous game. It's genetic difference must be "insignificant" to the other four sub species of African Buffalo, because they are all the same species. But whatever is the "insignificant" difference in genetics between Cape Buffalos and their close relations, it obviously makes a very big difference.

The same can be said with Brown bears and Grizzly bears.

If the genetic evolution of sub species within separate geographically isolated locations can result in wide differences in temperament, then it is reasonable to presume that the same thing can happen to human sub species for exactly the same reason. You can not blame "selective breeding, marginalisation, cultural displacement, poverty, lack of resources, religion, lack of social forces, or a lack of education." to explain why Grizzly bears and Cape Buffalo are intrinsically more violent than others in their species. The only credible explanation is an "insignificant" difference in behavioural genetics caused by the species evolving in isolation and adapting to local conditions.

Human behaviour is different. Both nature and nurture shape human personality. My premise is, that nature (genetics) provides the underlying personality to which environmental conditions can either exacerbate or mitigate the genetic programming. People associated with child care would agree with this. Babies have intrinsic personalities being either difficult and demanding, or placid and a joy to nurture. And a babies behaviour can only marginally be connected to environmental conditions. Difficult babies are renowned for becoming difficult adults, and vice versa.

Your position (correct me with a plain statement of clarification if I am wrong) suggests that genetic factors in behaviour are insignificant to the environmental factors you mentioned. I don't think your premise stands up to examination.

...Continued

Well, I've already alluded to my ideological position, which is that the time to believe something is when there is evidence for it (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275301), and that it is important to not get emotionally attached to a belief (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275302). But in your scrounging around for the ideology that you need from me, you missed this.

You have it arse-backwards. You start with a prejudice, then you look for correlations to support that prejudice. While I, on the other hand, start with the null hypothesis and follow the evidence.

This frustrates you because, for years now, your rehearsed arguments have relied upon allegations of prejudice among those with whom you disagree. This was the entire rationale behind your old nom de plume, in which you would wait for others to mention how fitting it was before pointing out an alleged hypocrisy on their part that wasn’t actually there. You were completely unaware that your comparison was false because people can do something about their demonstrably problematic prejudices, while people cannot change who they are born as or choose the culture into which they are born. It's like the difference between picking on someone because they said something stupid and picking on someone because of how they look.

<<If you are afraid of engaging in debate, what are you doing here?>>

We’ve engaged in much debate. The debate has been about the validity of your racial theories. What you really mean is, 'if I am afraid of adopting a dogmatic belief system’. In which case, I'd say, yes, I am, and you are a good example of why. I once held a religious belief, and coming to the realisation that it was false demonstrated to me the dangers of becoming emotionally attached to a belief.

<<You may as well just concede defeat...>>

When two people are having a debate, and one person has a rigid ideological belief while the other simply states the evidence as it currently stands, then the one with a rigid ideological belief does not win by default.

Continued…

Sorry, LEGO, but if you are being dishonest or displaying a lack of comprehension, then it is not abuse to point that out - particularly if I justify my claims. It gets to a point where not pointing it out is the less honest way to proceed because of this elephant in the room.

<<I repeat, that if you think I am misunderstanding your position, then simply correct it by stating clearly what your position is.>>

After having just done this for the umpteenth time now, I was taken aback by the fact that you could make such a request. And in a post filled with yet more of the same discredited claims (with conveniently ever-absent examples), in which one need only scroll up to view and confirm are not true.

Then it dawned on me…

It's not that you want me to state what my position is: I've already done that; and it’s not that I’m speaking in implications either: your inability to provide examples of them is evidence of their absence. No, it’s that you want me to take a dogmatic ideological position as you have. It frustrates you that some may simply follow the evidence to where it leads and be open to changing their minds if the evidence permits.

Your arguments are so rehearsed and simplistic, that they rely on me being as ideological and dogmatic as you to work. You need me to dogmatically cling to the belief that all “races” are identical. Every argument of mine has been twisted by you in a very specific and calculated way such that you can take them down the precise path that you need them to go down in order to counter what I’ve said.

You can't stand that I'm poking holes in your ideology by simply standing back and pointing to the flaws and oversights in you arguments. You want to be able to poke holes in my ideology too and so you interpret my lack of dogmatism as a "haziness" on my behalf.

Continued…

...Continued

<<My premise is, that nature (genetics) provides the underlying personality to which environmental conditions can either exacerbate or mitigate the genetic programming.>>

I would agree with that, while emphasising my very first paragraph to you on this thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724) as an illustration of the difficulties in extending heritable personality traits among close family members to entire “races”, to which I will delve into a little further next…

<<Difficult babies are renowned for becoming difficult adults, and vice versa.>>

This is not what recent evidence suggests (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/us-infant-fussiness-idUSBRE8920T320121003). Either way, it still wouldn’t be clear whether genetics was the driving force behind the difficult adult, because you also have a spiraling situation in which a difficult baby/child exasperates parents, who are then in turn less inclined to exercise the additional patience that a difficult baby/child requires; both of which exacerbate the situation in a vicious cycle that is difficult to break. So while genetics are probably at play there somewhere, it’s likely to be far less than what you’re suggesting. More importantly though, in the face of how radically different personalities are between individuals of any group, you still have the mammoth task of explaining how these genetic factors survive with a lack of environmental pressures, and in the face of variation, mutations and junk DNA too. Your point regarding psychotic breeding males is pretty momentary and insignificant in light of the above.

<<Your position ... suggests that genetic factors in behaviour are insignificant to the environmental factors you mentioned.>>

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

<<I don't think your premise stands up to examination.>>

Okay, well if you could provide me with some of this examination that it doesn’t stand up to, then I’d be interested to look at it. It couldn’t be your buffalo and bear analogy because, as even you point out: “Human behaviour is different. Both nature and nurture shape human personality.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275540)

Your leading premise was, that you "start with a null hypothesis" and "believe something when there is evidence for it". Correct me if I am wrong, but I am a racist and you are not. Both racists and non racists have "ideological positions", but I deny that mine is "dogmatic." I think that your position is dogmatic, because it is based on a contemporary absolutist orthodoxy that is so insecure about criticism of it, that it suppresses scientific research that questions it, and threatens legal sanctions on any person who dares to speak against it.

As a racist, I believe through direct observation, scientific research, and logic, that although the term "race" can be a generalised physical descriptor, but that some physical appearances are so strikingly different, that races exist in reality. As a racist, I believe that these races not only have different physical appearances, they have generalised different physical and mental capabilities as well.

If you are a non racist, then (correct me if I am wrong) your ideology must be, that all races are equal, because genetic differences are so "insignificant" that races are only a social construct based upon physical differences, so they do not exist in reality. That is hardly a "null hypothesis" to start with. And (correct me if I am wrong) if this is what you as an anti racist believe, what evidence do you have that all of these socially constructed "races" that are recognised only through physical appearances, are equal in physical capabilities and especially mental capabilities?

If you think I have misrepresented your case by presenting the widely recognised fundamental differences in ideology between racists and non racists, then please explain exactly what is your own particular "null hypothesis" non racist ideology? What does your own particular non racist ideology believe in? And by what evidence does it come to its conclusions?

Human behaviour is different, my Dear Mr Phillip, because with animals, genetic heritability of personality traits within sub species is the primary force controlling the personalities of individuals within the sub species. The only mitigating factor, is that some behaviour in animals is learned behaviour adopted from parental teaching of the young, in regards to which foods the young should consume, or how to react to threats from predators or rivals.

Humans are different, because environmental factors can be much more significant than genetics in explaining human behaviour. But at least we seem to agree (correct me if I am wrong) that both heritable genetic traits and environment both play a part in shaping human behaviour. We just disagree upon the importance that genetics plays as opposed to environmental conditioning.

You have submitted that there are "difficulties in extending heritable personality traits among close family members to entire “races". Not according to "The Bell Curve". "The Bell Curve" has used the data compiled in a hundred years of IQ testing in the USA to prove that the three identifiably different races in the USA have different bell curves of intelligence. "Intelligence" can be considered a "personality trait". Feel free to submit any scientific research which proves that the races in the USA or anywhere else have identical bell curves of intelligence. Feel free to also caste aspersions on the accuracy of IQ testing.

If we can understand that sub species of animals within species can have different heritable character traits caused by adaptation to localised environmental conditions, then the same can be said of humans. The differing levels of measured IQ between races does have an environmental explanation. Put simply, education and civilisation increases intelligence over time. Asians have a higher IQ than whites, because they have had the benefit of civilisations which have existed longer than whites. African and black people generally, have only ever lived in pre civilisation "hand to mouth" social structures where skills linked to intelligence such as forward planning, literacy, abstract thought, or numeracy, were not essential survival skills

Interesting response, LEGO. Not only do you not deny that you need me to have a rigid ideology, but you continue to try to pin one on me more conspicuously than ever before.

<<Correct me if I am wrong, but I am a racist and you are not.>>

Correct.

<<Both racists and non racists have "ideological positions"…>>

Yes, and I stated mine.

Non-racism, however, is not an ideological position any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Racism and non-racism are two logical absolutes. Racism consists of a specific set of ideas; non-racism is everything else.

<<…but I deny that mine is "dogmatic.">>

Your actions speak otherwise. The fact that you need to twist what I say to fit your particular narrative is not indicative of someone who is open to evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

<<I think that your position is dogmatic, because it is based on a contemporary absolutist orthodoxy that is so insecure about criticism of it, that it suppresses scientific research that questions it, and threatens legal sanctions on any person who dares to speak against it.>>

It matters not whether the position that I have arrived at is based on evidence gathered and compiled from an "absolutist orthodoxy", if that is the only reliable, peer-reviewed evidence available. What matters is my willingness to alter my position in the face of reliable evidence to the contrary.

You position, on the other hand, is dogmatic because of the extent to which you will go in order to avoid accepting anything that contradicts your premises (and you don’t get any 'more desperate' than persistently twisting what I say and mean). It’s not the position itself that matters, but how far we will go to defend it and avoid accepting other conclusions. But really… do I have to explain this sort of stuff to you?

As for this alleged orthodoxy, your one-sided emotional language there once again disregards the ethical issues and historically proven dangers regarding such studies. I don’t think such research should be banned necessarily, but to what end should such research be carried out?

Continued…

…Continued

You still haven’t answered this because you know that there’s no conceivable reason other than to justify racial oppression. Tolerance is one of the main reasons the world is more peaceful now than it’s ever been before and you, apparently, would jeopardise that for the chance to scientifically justify picking on certain groups.

<<…I believe through direct observation, scientific research, and logic, that although the term "race" can be a generalised physical descriptor, but that some physical appearances are so strikingly different, that races exist in reality.>>

This is a bit disjointed. So basically you’re saying that although the term “race” can be a generalised physical descriptor, the fact that some physical appearances are so strikingly different is why we can scientifically and logically conclude that races exist? Hmmm…

“Strikingly different” is a bit subjective too, dontcha think? What would you call the difference in physical appearance between humans and dogs? The fact that you need to appeal to such subjectivity is indicative of a weak argument.

<<…I believe that these races not only have different physical appearances, they have generalised different physical and mental capabilities as well.>>

You don’t even understand the psychological and sociological factors involved, and write those that you do know of off as conspiracy, so how could you possibly make this determination?

I like your next paragraph. It’s prime example of how you try to lead me down the path you need me to go by altering what I’ve said by a word or two.

<<If you are a non racist, then … your ideology must be, that all races are equal, because genetic differences are so "insignificant" that races are only a social construct based upon physical differences, so they do not exist in reality.>>

Firstly, I addressed the absurdity of applying specific traits to “non-racism” above. Secondly, even if you had said “anti-racist”, this would still be a big assumption because there is no reason why an anti-racist couldn’t acknowledge mental and criminogenic differences between “races”, but still not believe that some “races” are inferior, or should be treated as such.

Continued…

…Continued

Thirdly, I said “MORE OF a social construct” not “only”. Finally, an “ideology” is a system of beliefs and/or ideals. Not a single idea.

So no, that’s not my ideology.

<<…what evidence do you have that all of these socially constructed "races" that are recognised only through physical appearances, are equal in physical capabilities and especially mental capabilities?>>

I’ve never claimed they are. In fact, I‘ve said and suggested the opposite here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275037, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275386, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275087.

You really need me to believe this, don’t you. That’s why you’ve led me down the path to this.

In light of what I’ve pointed out regarding non-racism, your fourth paragraph gave me a bit of a chuckle. But if you want evidence for my opposition to racism, then go to your state library and check out any peer-reviewed journal article on race issues and read any sociology textbook. Each chapter will have plenty of references for you to follow. I’m not going to do the work for you.

<<Human behaviour is different, my Dear Mr Phillip, because with animals, genetic heritability of personality traits within sub species is the primary force controlling the personalities of individuals within the sub species…>>

Probably. The heritability of personalities is more profound in selectively bred animals, though, for obvious reasons.

<<Humans are different, because environmental factors can be much more significant than genetics in explaining human behaviour.>>

Correct. You’re making progress. You wouldn’t have admitted this a week ago.

<<But at least we seem to agree … that both heritable genetic traits and environment both play a part in shaping human behaviour.>>

And this so soon after trying to get me to agree with the conclusion of your third paragraph, in which you deduced that I must therefore believe that all races are mentally and physically equal, so that you could pin an ideology onto me.

<<We just disagree upon the importance that genetics plays as opposed to environmental conditioning.>>

More important is the fact that you disagree with pretty much every expert on this. What I think is of little significance.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Feel free to submit any scientific research which proves that the races in the USA or anywhere else have identical bell curves of intelligence.>>

I wouldn’t assume that they did, given all the variables I’ve mentioned in the past. The burden of proof is now on you to show that the psychological and sociological factors play a negligible role there. So far you have done a woeful job at doing this.

<<Feel free to also caste aspersions on the accuracy of IQ testing.>>

I’d loved the Freudian slip there.

The problems associated with the accuracy of IQ testing (on both an individual level and a cross-cultural level) are so well known that this has become somewhat of an axiom now. You can google this stuff and get hundreds of results explaining this.

A good peer-reviewed journal article that you could check out (complete with a ton of references for you to investigate further ) is What IQ Tests Test (http://www.swisswuff.ch/files/richardson2002whatiqteststest.pdf).

<<Put simply, education and civilisation increases intelligence over time.>>

Really? How? People don't just develop intelligence genes because they're doin' smart stuff. Natural selection determines which genes are passed on. This is good evidence for the nurture/cultural factors, but it's not so good for the genetic and evolutionary factors.

In what circumstances, after all, would the numeracy and literacy, that you mention, mean the difference between life and death? And how would the "forward planning" within civilisations prevent the less intelligent passing on their genes? You only need a handful of smart people in a civilised society; the rest are able to be dimmer and less forward thinking due to the predictability of living in a more advanced society.

Your civilisation arguments only further support what I've been saying about the cultural influences on IQ, and the cultural biases in IQ testing.

My last post to you, addressed your accusations about my debating style, and that your own style is above reproach.

You have accused me of twisting your words and misrepresenting your position. In response, I have accused you of not plainly stating your position, talking only in implications, and then complaining when I make reasonable assumptions about what I think is your position is. Rather than waste valuable debating space endlessly arguing points of order, and getting bogged down in detail, I have ignored your complaints and concentrated on debating the topic under discussion.

My last post to you, was an attempt to reset the debate and start with a clean sheet where you submitted your position and I submitted mine. I invited you to correct any misunderstandings about what your position is, instead of routinely complaining with high moral outrage and continuing to leave me in the dark.

Your response was extraordinary, and calculated to keep me guessing about where you stand. You claim that Racism is an ideology, but anti racism (or Egalitarianism) is not, therefore you do not have to state your position nor defend its premises. You have just unwittingly confirmed the validity of my complaint. Unsurprisingly, you petulantly insist that you intend to continue with your dishonest tactic.

This is the reason why I stopped being an egalitarian and became a racist. The egalitarian position is take for granted that their position is infallibly right and they have no need to provide any evidence or reasoned argument to defend it. Like creationists before them, they wish to create a "debate" where they just sit back and heckle with sneery one liners, deny every sensible argument, and refuse to make the most self evident connections.

If you consider yourself an intelligent liberal, you must feel uncomfortable resorting to tactics calculated to stifle reasoned debate and muddy the waters instead of arguing an issue on its merits. Your refusal to state plainly your position indicates to me that you know that your position is indefensible, your tactics are dishonest, and this "debate" a charade.

I have just learned another debating lesson. That is, to make certain that an egalitarian opponent unequivocally states his position prior to engaging in debate, so that he is forced to defend his premises. My mistake, was to presume that you were an honest person of liberal thought who was an egalitarian through faulty logic, and that I could begin the process of changing your mind by the application of reasoned argument.

But your last post confirmed my growing suspicion that you are an ideologue who considers his egalitarian ideology to be so far above reproach that it must be considered an absolute truth rather than an ideology. Perhaps you should read the recent OLO discussion topic relating to "fundamentalism" and make comparisons between that way of thinking and your own position?

Your post once again brought up the subjects about "ethical issues", " historically proven dangers regarding such studies", and "to what end should such research be carried out?" Could I reiterate that you are studying to be a Criminologist. Criminology is a science. Science is the objective investigation of natural phenomena to ascertain truth and reality. If "ethical issues" were pre eminent in directing scientific thought, we would still be claiming that the Earth was the centre of the universe, because it was "ethically" wrong to point out that the holy mother church got it wrong for 1500 years. Or that we should suppress the idea of evolution because the "ethical issues" regarding belief in God and Creation outweighed any responsibility to tell the truth.

If you consider yourself an honest, intelligent person of liberal thought, then you are obliged to think like a scientist instead of a fundamentalist. Especially, if you are studying to be a scientist. Your stubborn refusal to plainly state where you stand regarding racial equality is indicative that you know that your position is untenable and you do not want it's principles examined and argued out. You are prepared to suppress reasoned argument because you consider the propagation of an ideological ideal to be more important than an objective search for the truth

This just gets better and better as we go, LEGO. Not only do you not deny your arguments' dependence upon mine, you're now embracing it.

<<Your response was extraordinary, and calculated to keep me guessing about where you stand.>>

Why do you need to know my position? I have pointed to the problems with your racist beliefs. Why is it then not enough to simply counter my arguments?

I see three possibilities here (or a combination there of):

1. The basis for your racist beliefs is so weak that it can only be bolstered by leveraging it off of the opposite extreme (only effective if your opponent is of the opposite extreme).

2. You need your opponent's beliefs there on the table ready to divert attention to in a red herring when the numerous holes in your logic start appearing.

3. It provides you with ammunition with which to bully your opponent into leaving; thus making you feel like you've won the debate (with winning being an obvious goal of yours), when you're not doing so well.

But here's the nub:

You are so oblivious to what your desire to know your opponent's position means for your arguments that you unabashedly state later in your reply:

"I have just learned another debating lesson. That is, to make certain that an egalitarian opponent unequivocally states his position prior to engaging in debate..."

and why..?

"...so that he is forced to defend his premises."

Wow! Forced? What on earth do your opponent's arguments have to do with yours anyway?

This is an admission so astonishing that you could not have possibly understood the implications of it. You are effectively admitting that your arguments are not strong enough to stand on their own merit. You are the only person on OLO that I have come across who is (apparently) so insecure about the veracity of their beliefs that they insisted that I state mine else the debate be stifled. Most people are confident enough in their arguments' abilities to stand on their own that they don't need to know what others believe.

Continued...

...Continued

It frustrates you so much that I don't make the broad generalisations and assertions that you want me to make, that you interpret my clearly stated premises as an attempt on my behalf to keep you guessing and stifle the debate; despite the fact that they're not even relevant to my rebuttals of your arguments.

<<You claim that Racism is an ideology, but anti racism (or Egalitarianism) is not therefore you do not have to state your position nor defend its premises.>>

Actually, it's questionable whether racism in an of itself is an ideology, because ideologies tend to consist of both goals and methods of achieving those goals is. But hey, let's both agree that they're all ideologies if you think it'll make things easier for you. I have never denied having one anyway. I've even mentioned my ideology twice now (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275605). I'm happy to take 'anti-racist', and 'egalitarian' too, if you want to go strictly by the dictionary definition, without adding any creative assertions that you may want tack on to them.

So what? What difference does it make to your arguments? I have clearly stated and defended my position and premises multiple times regardless. You're just annoyed that they weren't the ones you wanted.

I’ll ignore the rest of your smears here since you still cannot provide any examples and evidence for them. I will, however, continue to point out, step-by-step, examples of your attempts to manipulate the debate in your favour.

<<Science is the objective investigation of natural phenomena to ascertain truth and reality.>>

And its purpose is to produce useful models of reality.

As for your Galileo and Darwin analogies that I showed previously to be false (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275389), they imply that there may be some benefits to genetically linking race to IQ that we just don't know of yet; they, consequently, assume that people in those times could not have possibly imagined the benefits of such discoveries; and they ignore the fact that - unlike the people of those times - we can actually demonstrate the dangers of such a discovery.

Your analogies are bunk.

It is amusing to see that you are pretending that you won the debate. I have debated many egalitarians over the last ten years, and it is not hard to corner them. The simple reason why, is that races do exist, they do have different physical differences, different physical attributes, and different mental abilities as well. The last attribute is difficult to prove outright, but you just keep piling on the evidence until the weight is overwhelming. And it isn't too hard to counter their arguments.

They usually go through stages. First, is the pose of intellectual and moral superiority, which thins as I get the better of them. Next, comes the stage where they exhibit shock and anger that I am winning. This results in them submitting posts in which they start to play games. They stonewall, use double standards, refuse to make the most obvious connections, and resort to sneery one liners instead of debating. Then they either get respectful and disappear into cyberspace, in which case you know you achieved something, or they continue to sneer and insult, then disappear, in which case you have at least got the better of them, and they know it.

With one exception, every one of them had the intellectual honesty to understand that we were debating two sides of a question here. The exception, was a particularly sly and experienced debater who presented his position in exactly the same way that you did. He really had me going for quite a long time, and he bogged me down in detail in which the laboured every point, until I figured out what he was doing. I was shocked that an educated person would misrepresent his position by claiming he did not need one, which is self evidently dishonest in a debate.

I was aware from the start in this debate that you had not clearly stated your position. But I had presumed that dishonest left wing Shiite ideologues who would do anything to suppress the truth, because they think that their ideology is more important, are very thin on the ground

I judged you to be another honest, young, and befuddled liberal who's opinions were the result of peer pressure conditioning, not the result of thoughtful analysis, and that you could be swayed by the force of reasoned argument. Your initial posts were reasonable and well presented, and that confirmed my judgement that you were debating fairly in good faith. Your premise about selective breeding, as opposed to natural selection, was quite good, I had not heard that one before. But high school level genetics was all it took for me to understand that it was crap. It only took me an hour on the web to counter that one. And you can bet that I will be better prepared if some liberal tosses that one at me in future.

At that point you reached what I call "the sneery one liner stage" where the purpose is not to engage in debate, it is to stifle debate. The red flags started rising that I had a genuine lefty Shiite ideologue as an opponent, but I still continued debating as if you were an honest young liberal who was getting desperate because they had run out of ideas. But when you accused me of lying, I had had enough. I demanded that you must clearly state your position, and when you claimed you did not need one, I knew that I was dealing with a person who was not prepared to debate in good faith.

If you need to stoop to such tactics to keep yourself in a debate, then could I advise you that you may as well chuck in your criminology course, because you do not have what it takes to be a scientist. We seem to be living in an age where ideologues are using the cover of being scientists or academics to push their stupid social theories that are detrimental to the continued existence of their own civilisation. Fortunately, we mostly still have free speech with which to counter this absurd ideology, although you ideologues are still trying to fix that little inconvenience up

Sigh... More ad hominem attacks. At least I would point to exactly why I would make the accusations that I made, while addressing the issue at the same time. You, on the other hand, will fill an entire response with claims that can be shown to be false simply by scrolling up. You just throw mud and hope it sticks. Your try to intimidate your opponents with your aggressive tone and talk of locking horns, crossing swords, pinning them in corners and throwing down gauntlets.

You assure me that past debates have gone better for you, yet as long ago as seven-and-a-half years ago even Graham Young had even explained to you why your opponents leave:

"...the reason people give up on arguing with you is not because you are winning, but because you don't obey the rules of logic. It just ends up being a waste of time." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4490#44500)

For someone who insists that others do their homework before "crossing swords" with you, and no longer has the excuse of requiring my position for a productive debate, you've gone awful quite on the evidence front.

You can't use my witty one-liners as an excuse either - let alone provide examples of them - because you know that they adequately addressed what they were responding to. In fact, they were productive on three levels because they also required minimal reading and highlighted the absurdity of what they were responding to as well.

Mr Phillips. I am a working class man who just got utterly fed up of the attacks upon my race, my people, my country, and my culture, by a bunch of educated idiots who think that they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else. I lived through a time when these educated idiots claimed that the USSR and Red China were "workers paradises" instead of the giant prison camps they were. The question which obsessed me was, how could educated and supposedly intelligent people support causes which were self evidently crazy?

I got onto these debate sites 10 years ago so, that I could grab a few of these people by the shirtfronts to see how smart they really were. My discovery was, that they are not all that bright at all. Racism and egalitarianism are subjects close to my heart. Since the egalitarians always blame my race for the dysfunctions of every race, people like yourself are fair game to me.

Now, I have found that I can win any debate with my egalitarian opponents because the idea of the races being equal in almost very way, is potty. The only way that you and the other devious, sly bugger could get even a look in, is to engage in deception from the start. Pretending that your position is beyond question and that it must not be examined or criticised, while claiming that your opponents opposing position is the only one that can be examined and criticised, is not debating.

Of course, it was imperative of you to conceal the fact that you had no intention of debating fairly and arguing the opposite side of the motion. My presumption is, that you have tried this trick before on some unsuspecting and trusting opponent, and it probably worked a treat. But it did not work on me for long because I have been a victim of it before. But if you consider yourself an intelligent person with high ideals, how do you reconcile your dishonest need to use subterfuge against an opponent who is debating fairly with you?

Keep digging, LEGO.

<<Now, I have found that I can win any debate with my egalitarian opponents because the idea of the races being equal in almost very way, is potty.>>

Egalitarianism is not the belief that all races are equal in almost every way, but the belief that they should be respected and treated as such. Where some deviate from this is their own prerogative.

<<…Pretending that your position is beyond question and that it must not be examined or criticised, while claiming that your opponents opposing position is the only one that can be examined and criticised, is not debating.>>

No, it certainly isn’t. I, however, simply pointed out the flaw in your excuse that you need my position to argue yours.

With such bare-faced untruths as these, you have no right to accuse me of dishonesty or a lack of sincerity.

<<…how do you reconcile your dishonest need to use subterfuge against an opponent who is debating fairly with you?>>

The fact that neither of your claims here are true is a big help.

You have not, and cannot, support your claims of my alleged lack of serenity or dishonesty the way I demonstrate yours, and I will never tire of pointing that out.

What's going down here AJ? I presumed that we are just talking together, here but you keep talking like you have an audience. But we are so far down the calendar that we are about to fall off the end, so who is the audience AJ?

Let's see. There I was on this topic, being my usual racist and obnoxious self, and suddenly, some character called "AJ Phillips", who I have never heard of before, just pops out of nowhere and challenges me to meet him outside the saloon at high noon.

That's OK. But this "AJ Phillips" has access to things I said years ago, and he knows the site so well he even knows little tricks about how to use a combination of keys as a rudimentary quote function. One other aspect of AJ Phillips is very strange. This site has only allowed 2 posts per topic in 24 hours, but this does not apply to him. He gets four 350 words posts away per 24 hours but I can't complain, because somehow that privilege gets bestowed upon me too.

Here's what I think AJ, you got a friend upstairs. The bloke who runs this site brought in a headkicker to sort me out and you and he are friends. He has chucked me off a couple of times for being a racist, but he likes my lively contributions, so he doesn't want me chucked off again, just given a verbal kicking. And he figured you were the man for the job.

Unfortunately for you, I have been around the block. You knew a tactic which you thought you would try out on me and it worked for a while, because I was trusting enough to think you were not a cheat. You would attack my racist position that all races were not equal, by never acknowledging the logical conclusion that they therefore must be equal. Well, not only have I seen that strategy before with another cheat, I even named it. I call it the "always imply, but when challenged deny" school of debate cheating.

What was that you were saying about moral outrage, LEGO?

<<With one exception, every one of them had the intellectual honesty to understand that we were debating two sides of a question here.>>

Nice try, but one person arguing that their beliefs are right, while the other points out why they're not, is still "two sides of a question".

<<The exception, was a particularly sly and experienced debater who presented his position in exactly the same way that you did. He really had me going for quite a long time, and he bogged me down in detail in which [he] laboured every point...>>

Sounds like this fictional person was very knowledgeable and thorough. Let me guess... you couldn't make the debate about him and so you threw a tantrum and accused him of cheating?

<<...until I figured out what he was doing. I was shocked that an educated person would misrepresent his position by claiming he did not need one...>>

The horror!

That's not a misrepresentation, though.

<<...which is self evidently dishonest in a debate.>>

Why? Since when has the position of another been relevant to defending your position? You keep sidestepping this.

Trying to make the debate about your opponent? Now that's dishonest.

Either way, if someone agrees with the rebuttals they provide, then why is it not enough to assume that that's their position?

I'll tell you why. It's because you just want an emotionally and subjectively derived opinion to attack and it bugs you when someone argues from reliably derived data. It's not enough for your opponent to believe that all "races" are deserving of equal treatment either. You need them to believe that they are all virtually identical and when you don't get that, you become a petulant bully and make disgusting and offensive accusations.

<<Your premise about selective breeding, as opposed to natural selection, was quite good, I had not heard that one before. But high school level genetics was all it took for me to understand that it was crap. It only took me an hour on the web to counter that one.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Could you please state what you think my premise was? Could you also link me to the information you found discrediting what I said?

I'm willing to bet you don't get even get the premise right.

<<I presumed that we are just talking together, here but you keep talking like you have an audience.>>

Now that's transference if I ever saw it:

"I will let our audience judge the merits of your extraordinary statistics." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274742)

"Any impartial observer can see that I have no problem with replying at length to you." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275322)

"Any impartial observer would know that you are heckling and not debating." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275538)

<<There I was ... being my usual racist and obnoxious self, and suddenly, some character called "AJ Phillips", who I have never heard of before...>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11725#200730

<<But this "AJ Phillips" has access to things I said years ago...>>

As do we all (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp). Complete with a good memory and Google skills.

<<...and he knows the site so well he even knows little tricks about how to use a combination of keys as a rudimentary quote function.>>

CRTL+F is a standardised computer function. That's right; most of your audience would know that they can simply CRTL+F keywords to verify your claims.

<<This site has only allowed 2 posts per topic in 24 hours, but this does not apply to him.>>

That rule changed about six years ago.

<<Here's what I think AJ, you got a friend upstairs.>>

Surprised your bullying and intimidation hasn’t worked yet, eh?

<<You knew a tactic which you thought you would try out on me and it worked for a while...>>

Examples and quotes of this cheating please.

<<You would attack my racist position that all races were not equal, [while] never acknowledging the [opposite] logical conclusion that they therefore must be equal.>>

The only logical conclusion? Apparently you still can't distinguish between the belief that all "races" are virtually identical and belief that they should be respected and treated as equals.

<<I call it the "always imply, but when challenged deny" school of debate cheating.>>

And still no examples...

Hi AJ.

I thought that my last post to you would have you ruefully admitting that LEGO saw through your subterfuge. Nope, you actually have the gall to come back and claim that what you did was fair. Full marks for audacity, 0 for integrity.

Your laughable explanation for your behaviour, is that it is my belief that races are different, so you have a right to oppose that belief in fair debate. There are a couple of things wrong with that, and you knew that already.

The first is, that if one side submits the motion that all races are different, then by logical extension, the opposing side must believe that all races are equal.

The second is, that this is the normal position of opposing sides in race debates because everybody, including yourself, knows that races are either equal or they are not.

Now, if you want to debate the idea that all races are different without acknowledging its logical opposite, the onus was upon you to let me know on your first post. That you did not, clearly identifies you as a duplicitous person who knew right from the start that his opponent would naturally assume the normal positions in both sides of a race debate, and confusion would result.

Furthermore, when I made reasonable assumptions pertaining to the normal positions of a person advocating racial equality, you knew that I was making fair assumptions based on that fact. But you did not correct me by revealing your novel and extraordinary position, even when I asked you politely to clarify it. Instead you deliberately sowed more confusion by angrily claiming that I was misrepresenting your position, even accusing me of lying, when you knew right from the start that confusion and confounding was your intent.

In other words, AJ, like every other wild eyed ideologue from the start of human history, you were more concerned with suppressing the truth than examining it, because you did not want the fundamental principle of your world saving ideology to be found wanting.

That's not the behaviour of a budding scientist.

On the contrary, LEGO, it is only you who is engaging in subterfuge, and your last post is yet another example of this.

<<Your laughable explanation for your behaviour, is that it is my belief that races are different, so you have a right to oppose that belief in fair debate.>>

Just "different"? You’ve left this broad purposefully. Otherwise, close enough, though that wasn’t my behaviour.

<<There are a couple of things wrong with that...>>

People can view others as equals in different ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_equality). Your argument here relies on conflating these to create a false dichotomy. I just finished explaining this in my last post.

Full marks for audacity; 0 for integrity.

<<Now, if you want to debate the idea that all races are different without acknowledging its logical opposite the onus was upon you to let me know on your first post.>>

I liked this slip. You accuse me of calculating behaviour and yet you effectively admit here that you need to calculate your plan of attack. Aren’t your arguments good enough?

<<That you did not, clearly identifies you as a duplicitous person who knew right from the start that his opponent would naturally assume the normal positions in both sides of a race debate, and confusion would result.>>

Pot. Silverware. Black.

You still haven’t explained what difference it makes to your arguments other than a need to make the debate about your opponent.

<<But you did not correct me by revealing your novel and extraordinary position, even when I asked you politely to clarify it.>>

I corrected you every time. You’re delusional.

<<…like every other wild eyed ideologue from the start of human history, you were more concerned with suppressing the truth than examining it...>>

On the contrary, questioning beliefs is the first step to ascertaining their truth value. Thus, even if your dichotomy were not false, it still wouldn't be necessary to hold the opposing view. If that were the case, then no-one could ever examine the strength or truth of their beliefs objectively. You’re effectively claiming that it’s impossible to question one’s own beliefs.

Gone back to cutting up my posts and replying with sneery one liners instead of reasoned arguments AJ? Desperation setting in?

I don't have to engage in "calculating behaviour" like you did AJ, or "plan my attack." I have done this so many times before that it is routine. My only mistake, was to initially regard you as a basically honest person who really did believe in the idea that all races were intellectually equal, and that genetic differences pertaining to inherited behaviour was also equal.

But you already knew that I was right. The key to what you really believed was revealed in the way you kept bringing up the question "what good does it do...?" This is the essential question to you, not whether races are equal or unequal. You are an idealist, who like so many before you have asked the question. "Why, if human beings are intelligent, is there war and poverty? Surely we can find a system of economics and government where everybody on Earth gets fair shake?"

Egalitarian idealists have concluded that solving these problems can only be achieved by insisting that all people must be considered equal, and treated equally, regardless of whether they are equal or not. Now solving human hostility and poverty are noble considerations. But you are not doing your cause any good if you have to resort to denying self evident reality to support your ideological solution to creating world peace and ending poverty. If you have to do this, you are tipping at windmills and dreaming the impossible dream. Especially, when you yourself know that you are propagating an increasingly obvious lie to support your noble position.

This "debate" was a charade. My position was the position of science. "Let the truth be told, though the heavens may fall." Your position, (odd for a nimrod scientist) was "I know you are right, but the truth must be concealed, because only ideological commitment to egalitarian principles can save the world."

More ad hominems. Boring.

<<Gone back to cutting up my posts and replying with sneery one liners instead of reasoned arguments AJ?>>

Still not providing quotes and evidence for your accusations, LEGO?

Try pointing to any response, in any of my posts, that didn’t address what was responding to. Or how about you try “cutting up” my posts and see how well you do responding? You can’t because every one of your responses relies on me (and your audience) forgetting what I had said. It’s how you stay in denial.

<<I don't have to engage in "calculating behaviour" … or "plan my attack.">>

Oh, come now. You’ve effectively admitted it:

“…make certain that an egalitarian opponent unequivocally states his position prior to engaging in debate, so that he is forced to defend his premises.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275704)

and now…

“…if you want to debate the idea that all races are different without acknowledging its logical opposite the onus was upon you to let me know on your first post.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275878)

What would this achieve otherwise?

You still won’t address this because the answer reveals your tired old tactic:

1. State the same old discredited nonsense (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11725#200730);
2. Devote half your energies to making your opponent the central issue;
3. Bully them out of the debate (i.e. until they do the mature thing and leave);
4. Run around declaring victory (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=148#17718).

It didn’t work this time, so you then label the entire debate a “charade”.

<<My only mistake, was to initially regard you as a basically honest person who really did believe in the idea that all races were intellectually equal, and that genetic differences pertaining to inherited behaviour was also equal.>>

So your arguments would have been different otherwise?

This still doesn’t get you out of your false dichotomy either. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_equality)

<<The key to what you really believed was revealed in the way you kept bringing up the question "what good does it do...?">>

That was a valid question, so by what evidence do you base this claim of yours?

Your posts are still very lean on the evidence front.

Drop the feigned outrage and injured innocence pose, AJ. I know what you did, and you know what you did.

What intrigues me is why? Why would a young man who is studying a science degree want to engage in a race debate where he deliberately concealed from his opponent, that he had no opinion on racial equality? You knew before you even started what you were going to do. And you knew that I would naturally presume that your position was the opposite of mine. You knew that I became confused about your position, which was your intent, and that I asked you to politely to clarify it. But you deliberately did not, other than make some vague references to you having "already stated your position."

A simple statement from you as to what your real position was, would have been easy to do. But you preferred to keep playing games. You pretended that you were stating your position, because you wanted to keep the subterfuge up as long as possible. The reason was, because your intent was not to engage in debate, it was to stifle debate.

Are you naturally dishonest? Or is there a deeper reason why you did it? A reason where you justified your own dishonesty to yourself? Did you consider that being dishonest, evasive and obstructive was OK, because you had a higher ideal to protect?

Did you ever hear of the story about Galileo and the young priest? After it got out that Galileo had discovered and proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe, a young priest visited Galileo and asked him to renounce his own scientific research, for he sake of the Church's reputation. Galileo invited the young priest to look through his telescope to see for himself what was true. But like you, the young priest refused to stoop to observe the truth that he feared to see.

Unless you start thinking straight, I would advise you to drop your science course and become a priest. It might improve your sense of integrity also.

Outrage, LEGO? I'm just having fun now.

<<Drop the feigned outrage and injured innocence pose, AJ. I know what you did, and you know what you did.>>

I know what you think I did. I also know that you cannot support your claims.

<<What intrigues me is why? Why would a young man who is studying a science degree want to engage in a race debate where he deliberately concealed from his opponent, that he had no opinion on racial equality?>>

Oh why?!

C’mon LEGO, cut the feigned concern. You don't even like criminologists. None of them agree with your racial theories and they're all a bunch leftie ideologues anyway.

I never said that I had no opinion. I have simply said (and only recently) that my opinion is irrelevant. You are yet to explain why it is.

I have continually requested that you quote where you are getting your interpretations of what I am saying from, so as to avoid confusion. I even once gave you a tip on how to search the thread using keywords. Only twice have you since attempted to quote me and on both occasions, you changed the wording to suit your rehearsed rebuttals.

Other than this, you have refused to co-operate because it allowed you to pretend that I was being evasive. You use a dishonest tactic to make me look dishonest because you’ve exhausted all your racist arguments.

To add to this, I buggered off earlier (because, as I mentioned at the time, I became busy and got bored with the discussion) before you beckoned me back (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275017). Not exactly indicative of someone who had a plot to hatch now, is it.

And what makes you think I'm young? I'm not your typical university age. I just decided on a midlife career change, as so many do these days.

<<The reason was, because your intent was not to engage in debate, it was to stifle debate.>>

Let’s take a couple of samples of this alleged stifling and analyse them then, shall we? Please feel free to respond in kind too, won’t you.

Continued…

…Continued

I had said:
“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. Physical appearances are only affected by our genes. Now, you can claim that nurture doesn't play a part in shaping our personalities, but you'd be in disagreement with every expert on the topic. The only thing in contention is the extent to which each of the two factors contributes to our personalities.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275037)

You then later said:
“First you claimed that genetics affects our appearance, but not our personalities. Then by some application of doublethink, you then claimed that personality is a factor of nature and nurture.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275058)

I then replied:
“I didn't claim that. Although I did say that you cannot genetically attribute certain personality traits to an entire group like you can (at least to a greater extent) attribute physical traits…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275085)

Another example is where I said:
““Race” is now known to be (if anything) a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one. Since mapping the human genome, we can now know that the physical features we often associate with races make up a mere 0.02% of our DNA - and none of these can be tied to intelligence. Approximately 85% of genetic variation occurs between individuals within the same community. Only 5-10% of genetic variation comes from people of different continents. Genetic mutation and the proportion of junk material in the human genome make it impossible to use a genetic marker to identify a group as a “race”. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724)

To which you later respond:
“Your position appears to be, that the concept [of] race is genetically unsubstantiated, therefore no genetic argument which claims that race and crime are linked could be valid.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275507)

I replied:
“No, more that it's genetically insignificant and that "race" is more of a cultural construct.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275532)

In your very next post, you start with the accusations:
“…you have no intention of returning my courtesy and correcting any misconceptions I may have about your position” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275538)

Goodbye LEGO. You’re done for.

Still playing games, AJ?

The race debate is over, because I was the only one who was serious about having a meaningful debate. You wanted to stifle debate by engaging in dishonesty which you had pre planned before you even started. You knew all along that you had no intention of recognising the logical position that if races were not different, then they must be equal.

It was a premeditated and calculated bit of deception that you even tried to justify. While ever I naively thought that you were honest and treated you accordingly, you could justify to yourself that it was not your problem if I was too stupid to recognise your duplicity.
You rationalised around the inconvenient fact that your behaviour was unethical at the least and downright reprehensible at the worst.

OK sunshine, you want to debate racial differences? Let's do it again. And this time you will submit beforehand the motion that all races are equal, while I support he motion that they are not. But you won't do that, will you? And the reason is, because you know that I am right and the position which you so dishonestly defend with implications, evasions, stonewalling and misrepresentation, is a load of malarkey. And you know that if we debate fairly on this issue I will do you like a dinner.

What is important to you is not that the races are different, but that they must not be seen to be different. It must never be acknowledged publically that they are different. Unfortunately for you and your friends, you can't shut me up by chucking me out of a university sinecure.

Lastly, I have the greatest respects for scientists and that includes criminologists. Unfortunately, we live in an age where ideologues can get degrees and pretend they are scientists. Thy can pretend that they are real criminologists, historians, and climate scientists. Such people can then use the authority of science to push their lunatic social agendas based upon reasoning so scatterbrained that even an electrician can drive a bus through the holes in their logic.

LEGO,

I don't think there's much point in continuing. There are three main problems here.

Firstly, the very specific line that you require your opponents to go down, and your intense focus on 'winning', is indicative of a person who is more interested in big-noting themselves and nursing insecurities than engaging in a productive and thoughtful discussion.

Secondly, your penchant for inventing a completely fictional take on the events of a discussion - even on a post that I've just written, sitting directly above yours - is a textbook indication of a delusional state of mind; further confirmed by your confident and unashamed repeating of a mistake that I've just highlighted, as if nothing had been said, and total obliviousness to the fact that you've trashed your own credibility.

Take my last two posts; the fact that you can brush off everything I had just said as a "game" and so confidently plow on as if nothing had happened is not indicative of a person who is capable of holding a rational discussion. That being said, I no longer think you're intentionally lying or being dishonest. Although the way you (almost timidly) just repeat the same claims without so much as using my rebuttals as a theme or context for them (instead relying on things I haven't said or implied) suggests a guilty conscience.

Finally, your refusal to support your claims with the requested evidence and quotes, despite my efforts in that department; and your rudeness in effectively ignoring my posts, only to then reply with more slander and misrepresentations, with no apologies for what I have just demonstrated to be slanderous, are signs of a bully who just wants debate to be conducted on his terms and stamps his feet when that doesn't happen.

<<You wanted to stifle debate by engaging in dishonesty which you had pre planned before you even started.>>

See? You don't even attempt to justify this stuff.

<<You knew all along that you had no intention of recognising the logical position that if races were not different, then they must be equal.>>

Continued...

...Continued

I recognise that and have never denied it. I will happily go on record now saying that if races are not different, then they must be equal.

<<Let's do it again. And this time you will submit beforehand the motion that all races are equal, while I support he motion that they are not.>>

This just goes to show how pre-planned, structured and rehearsed your debates are, and woe be to anyone who dares to pull you from that script. They will be bullied and pushed around. Are you going to tell me what arguments to use too?

<<But you won't do that, will you? ... because you know that I am right and the position which you so dishonestly defend with implications, evasions, stonewalling and misrepresentation, is a load of malarkey.>>

So, I'm defending the position you so desperately need from me (i.e. that all "races" are absolutely equal) and cleverly disguising the fact by using arguments that have a different premise? I'm defending one idea, by arguing a contradictory one. Hmmm...

As a man of, shall we say, modest intellect, unable to grasp more sophisticated ideas, how about I try to dumb my position down for you and you can tell me how it's not valid or why I'm not allowed to debate from that perspective?

While "races" are clearly not physically equal (e.g. some are faster runners), this does't necessarily mean that some races are, overall, superior to others, or that we can objectively determine if they are or not. And even if some are, we should all respect each other as equals regardless. Determining if "races" are (genetically) mentally or criminogenically equal, on the other hand, is not only exceptionally difficult, given all the external variables and influences on both a macro an micro level, but is extremely unlikely given every thing I said in my first paragraph on this thread to you.

But I've been saying this all along.

Now, please tell me how this is not a valid position or why I'm not allow to debate from such a perspective.

The question is, AJ, are all races equal, or are they not? Unless you are prepared to debate that question on its merits then you have lost the debate by default. You already knew that the races were not equal and that they are different. That was why you tried to "debate" only on the premise that the races were different. You wanted a "debate" where I had to prove everything and you had to prove nothing. It was a position which presupposed that racial equality was an already proven scientific fact, when you know that this is not true. If you wish to deny that, then I invite you to debate me on this question using scientific evidence alone.

You say that I must show proof of your dishonesty. I just did. Any impartial observer who may be reading this exchange can appreciate that the your fundamental position was dishonest, because it does not recognise the essential logic that if races are not equal, then they must be different. All of your posts were an attempt to either conceal that essential fact or to pretend that it was a valid position.

I am no longer concerned by the question, if you did it? I would like to know, why you did it? If you already knew by default that the races are different, why did you argue the opposite while refusing to even acknowledge that it was your real position? The only answer that makes any sense to me, is that you are a card carrying ideologue who is prepared to even deny what he knows to be the truth in order to propagate an ideology that he considers so above reproach that it must be defended using any means necessary. If you are not an ideologue, then the only other explanation for thinking like that is, that you have an ego driven personality where winning at any cost is your primary motivation

These can never be the attitudes of a person who is studying a science degree, nor a person who values intellect and morality. You had better go and live in a cave for a few weeks and do a bit of inner reflecting before you go back to uni. Perhaps your professor is a lunatic lefty, who also thinks like an ideologue, in which case you have probably figured out that if you adopt the position of a real scientist, then the same things which happened to Shockley, Galileo, Darwin, and recently, professor Larry Summers of Harvard University, will happen to you come examination time. And you know it is safer to toe the ideological party line than to think for yourself.

But thinking originally and engaging in an unbiased search for the truth, and be damned to ideology, is what science is all about, AJ. Even an electrician can figure out that if you have to engage in deception and dishonesty to hide the truth and conceal the glaring imperfections in your ideology, then your ideology is crap.

Finally, we again get to the question of whether races are equal or not. I am sure that your dishonest position has worked for you quite well in the past and you have probably tricked up a few opponents by trying it out before. But it did not work on me for long because I am too experienced a debater and I have come across it previously

I am sure that you will try your little trick out again on another opponent and you will succeed in tying him up in knots. But all the time you are doing it you must be aware that your position is fundamentally dishonest and you don't care that it is so. And, you will always have to worry about bumping into another person like me who can think straight

Whoops.

Reading through all of your last post, I see that you have finally submitted what is your real position. You appear to be only interested in the moral position of whether the races should "respect" each other by not appearing to be "superior" to each other.

The fact that black people have superior solar protection for their skin, and that they generally superior sprint runners than whites or Asians, should not be suppressed because it could be construed as disrespecting whites and Asians. The fact that Asians are generally smarter than whites, is not an act of disrespect, it is self evident truth, which perfectly explains why Asians are very disproportionately represented in university admissions and high school honours.

You have just confirmed everything that I have said about you. You are not concerned with scientific fact, only with promoting an ideology by any means, which you think will ensure social harmony. You understand that races are not equal, but you wish to promote an ideology which pre supposes that they are. I will tell you what is wrong with that. It is an ideology based upon a falsehood, and unsurprisingly, it is failing because of that falsehood.

Multiculturalism was based upon the supposition that all races, cultures and religions were equal. No matter how you duck and weave, it is undeniable that multiculturalism has been a catastrophe for western nations, with western leaders now lining up to say that multiculturalism in their respective countries has failed. If social harmony is your goal, then why do you support an ideology that was to have supposed to have ensured social harmony, which has already proven to have failed?

When presented with an endemic problem which keeps getting worse, and which conventional orthodox thinking has failed to remedy, a scientific person like yourself is supposed to put aside all preconceived notions, collate all pertinent data, and start thinking objectively. Instead, you are prepared to be evasive, stonewall, and spin doctor the truth, in order to defend self evident failure.

Yes, whoops indeed, LEGO.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you just skim my posts for bits that you think you can use to promote your argument. You also confirm what I’ve been saying about your tactic of making your debates about your opponent. How is that “fair” debate?

And you don’t get say “finally” either. A simple CTRL+F search of the thread for keywords in my clarification reveals that I have been saying this all along.

It’s amusing, too, how quickly you dumped your false dichotomy now that you think you’ve got the ammunition you need.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph of your last post. But you overlook everything I have said about IQ’s: test biases and inaccuracies; how much is genetic and how much is cultural; the fact that I disproved your civilisation link and showed how it actually supported the cultural influences on IQ. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275700)

<<You have just confirmed everything that I have said about you.>>

Okay then, let’s compare what I’ve said with your accusations:

<<You are not concerned with scientific fact…>>

Despite me saying:
“Determining if "races" are (genetically) mentally or criminogenically equal, on the other hand, is not only exceptionally difficult, given all the external variables and influences on both a macro and micro level, but is extremely unlikely given everything I said in my first paragraph on this thread to you.”

<<...only with promoting an ideology by any means…>>

What I actually said:
“...even if some ["races"] are [superior], we should all respect each other as equals regardless.”

Tell me why we shouldn’t, and I will retract this.

<<...which you think will ensure social harmony.>>

Where do I presume this? Having merely asked what benefits studies into the genetics of race and IQ will provide is not indicative of this.

<<...you wish to promote an ideology which pre supposes that [all races are equal].>>

What I actually said:
“While "races" are clearly not physically equal ... this doesn't necessarily mean that some races are, overall, superior to others, or that we can objectively determine if they are or not.”

Retractions? Apologies?

“Determining if "races" are (genetically) mentally or criminogenically equal, on the other hand, is not only exceptionally difficult,".........

AJ, is not only "difficult", it is bloody impossible, because it presupposes that races are born equal in that condition, which is exactly the premise you have chosen for so long to avoid taking a position on. The reason being, that to prove that races are equal in intelligence or criminal inheritance would put the burden of proof on you to defend your half of the question. And you will never do that, because you just spent the last 15 pages ducking and weaving around it. To defend it, would mean that you would be obliged to debate fairly, with both sides clearly stating their positions, both sides giving reasoned arguments, both sides providing evidence to support their positions, and both sides examining each others logic and countering it.

Just when I think we are starting to straighten you out you backslide on me. Of course I only skim your posts. While ever I read that you are still pretending to claim that you are debating fairly, I know that you are spin doctoring and trying to lead me away from what you do not want discussed with a big bag of very smelly red herrings. AJ, I didn't just walk in from the sheep sheds. I know when you squirming and grasping desperately at any passing piece of flotsam to keep your argument afloat.

Races are not equal in appearance, although I am sure that egalitarians like yourself would even claim that if you could get away with it. Different physical appearances generally means different physical attributes, so you can't get way with that either. We are left with intelligence and inherited personality traits. My premise is, that different races are not equal in intelligence or personality traits, they are different. Now, what is your position on that? Don't play bloody games and beat around the bush. State your position plainly, for or against, and we will take if from there.

You sound very confused, LEGO. A classic symptom of being flustered.

<<AJ, is not only "difficult", it is bloody impossible…>>

So now you’re claiming that it’s impossible to find a genetic link between race and mentality, or race and criminogenic potential?

Then why do you think we can find an answer to this? Why do you want more genetic research done in this area? What is the “brotherhood” trying to suppress then?

I think you’ve just shot yourself in the foot there.

<<…because it presupposes that races are born equal in that condition...>>

How does what I said presuppose that “races” are “born equal”? And in what condition exactly?

Your sentences are becoming very disjointed.

<<…which is exactly the premise you have chosen for so long to avoid taking a position on.>>

“Avoid?” Oh boy. What part of the CTRL+F function do you not understand? I suppose if you overlook it, it didn’t happen. Is that right?

And what premise are you talking about now, anyway? That all races are born equal? I have never said that (in fact, I had even entertained the possibility that "races" are not all mentally or criminogenically equal at one point (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275386)), and it’s convenient that your new-found quoting ability stopped short of demonstrating that I had.

With that in mind, the rest of your post can be duly disregarded. But at least I had the courtesy not to skim it.

Pull yourself together, LEGO.

You have misquoted me by taking my quote completely out of context and then attacking a position based upon this misquote. I keep looking for some attempt by you to debate meaningfully, but all I see is a desire to spin doctor, stonewall, misquote, beat around the bush, toss red herrings everywhere, refuse to make obvious connections, contradict yourself, and generally do everything you can to stifle debate instead of promoting it.

And yes, I appreciate that you have made certain statements which had me thinking you were taking a position I could examine, only to have you denying that position in the next post with no clarification as to what your position was. That was the point where I began to suspect that you were deliberately being as vague as possible in order to derail the debate. The best example of which was where you openly admitted that you understood that genetics and crime are linked, and that criminologists already knew that. When I began an argument based upon what looked to me like a firm position, your next post had you hopping around in red faced apoplexy about my use of the word "concede". Everything you said after that gave the impression that you considered that genetics and crime were not linked.

It was about that time I really wondered what you were doing. Making contradictory statements is either proof of a disordered mind, or a intelligent but dishonest one. I then had to decide the old question of "is he dumb, or is he devious?" You will perhaps be delighted to know that I did not judge you to be dumb, at least in the idea that you have low intelligence. That left devious, and everything I have seen so far tells me that you are a devious little bugger who wants this debate to go around in circles forever.

Mind you, it gives me great encouragement that this is all you can manage. I plainly reveals to me that you already know that race, crime and genetics are linked and you need to avoid it.

For someone who was allegedly taken out-of-context, you sure aren’t in much of a hurry to answer my requests for clarification.

You know what I think? I think it was actually you who was trying to take me out-of-context and it no longer worked after I re-worded what I said to mean exactly the same thing. Every step of the way you have tried to pull the wool over my eyes and it hasn’t worked yet, so what makes you think it’s going to work any time soon?

I see you have tried the ‘contradiction’ claim once again; probably in the hope that your audience are no longer reading because the “One quarter back” option now needs to be selected to view this thread. I’ve never seen that trick work before. You do realise there are email alerts that can be set up too, don’t you?

<<...only to have you denying that position in the next post with no clarification as to what your position was.>>

Oh, I clarified alright: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276059

<<The best example of which was where you openly admitted that you understood that genetics and crime are linked … your next post had you hopping around in red faced apoplexy about my use of the word "concede".>>

What I said:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#275038
Your misrepresentation:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#275058
My clarification:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#275085
Your second crack at it:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#275189
My clarification:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#275229
Your further misrepresentation:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#275247
My clarification:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#275300

CTRL+F is your friend.

<<Making contradictory statements is either proof of a disordered mind, or a intelligent but dishonest one.>>

I have demonstrated your allegations of contradiction to be false three times already (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275085).

Finally, you continue to refer to me as a youth with “sunshine” and “little bugger”, despite the fact that I have already clarified my (approximate) age, but you missed it in all your skimming. My clarification was in two posts that conclusively proved that it has actually been you, not I, who has been engaging in trickery and deceit (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276001, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276002).

You continue to make a fool of yourself every step of the way, LEGO, and it's all your own doing.