...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…