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