…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...