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.