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…