These can never be the attitudes of a person who is studying a science degree, nor a person who values intellect and morality. You had better go and live in a cave for a few weeks and do a bit of inner reflecting before you go back to uni. Perhaps your professor is a lunatic lefty, who also thinks like an ideologue, in which case you have probably figured out that if you adopt the position of a real scientist, then the same things which happened to Shockley, Galileo, Darwin, and recently, professor Larry Summers of Harvard University, will happen to you come examination time. And you know it is safer to toe the ideological party line than to think for yourself.

But thinking originally and engaging in an unbiased search for the truth, and be damned to ideology, is what science is all about, AJ. Even an electrician can figure out that if you have to engage in deception and dishonesty to hide the truth and conceal the glaring imperfections in your ideology, then your ideology is crap.

Finally, we again get to the question of whether races are equal or not. I am sure that your dishonest position has worked for you quite well in the past and you have probably tricked up a few opponents by trying it out before. But it did not work on me for long because I am too experienced a debater and I have come across it previously

I am sure that you will try your little trick out again on another opponent and you will succeed in tying him up in knots. But all the time you are doing it you must be aware that your position is fundamentally dishonest and you don't care that it is so. And, you will always have to worry about bumping into another person like me who can think straight

Whoops.

Reading through all of your last post, I see that you have finally submitted what is your real position. You appear to be only interested in the moral position of whether the races should "respect" each other by not appearing to be "superior" to each other.

The fact that black people have superior solar protection for their skin, and that they generally superior sprint runners than whites or Asians, should not be suppressed because it could be construed as disrespecting whites and Asians. The fact that Asians are generally smarter than whites, is not an act of disrespect, it is self evident truth, which perfectly explains why Asians are very disproportionately represented in university admissions and high school honours.

You have just confirmed everything that I have said about you. You are not concerned with scientific fact, only with promoting an ideology by any means, which you think will ensure social harmony. You understand that races are not equal, but you wish to promote an ideology which pre supposes that they are. I will tell you what is wrong with that. It is an ideology based upon a falsehood, and unsurprisingly, it is failing because of that falsehood.

Multiculturalism was based upon the supposition that all races, cultures and religions were equal. No matter how you duck and weave, it is undeniable that multiculturalism has been a catastrophe for western nations, with western leaders now lining up to say that multiculturalism in their respective countries has failed. If social harmony is your goal, then why do you support an ideology that was to have supposed to have ensured social harmony, which has already proven to have failed?

When presented with an endemic problem which keeps getting worse, and which conventional orthodox thinking has failed to remedy, a scientific person like yourself is supposed to put aside all preconceived notions, collate all pertinent data, and start thinking objectively. Instead, you are prepared to be evasive, stonewall, and spin doctor the truth, in order to defend self evident failure.

Yes, whoops indeed, LEGO.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you just skim my posts for bits that you think you can use to promote your argument. You also confirm what I’ve been saying about your tactic of making your debates about your opponent. How is that “fair” debate?

And you don’t get say “finally” either. A simple CTRL+F search of the thread for keywords in my clarification reveals that I have been saying this all along.

It’s amusing, too, how quickly you dumped your false dichotomy now that you think you’ve got the ammunition you need.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph of your last post. But you overlook everything I have said about IQ’s: test biases and inaccuracies; how much is genetic and how much is cultural; the fact that I disproved your civilisation link and showed how it actually supported the cultural influences on IQ. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275700)

<<You have just confirmed everything that I have said about you.>>

Okay then, let’s compare what I’ve said with your accusations:

<<You are not concerned with scientific fact…>>

Despite me saying:
“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 and micro level, but is extremely unlikely given everything I said in my first paragraph on this thread to you.”

<<...only with promoting an ideology by any means…>>

What I actually said:
“...even if some ["races"] are [superior], we should all respect each other as equals regardless.”

Tell me why we shouldn’t, and I will retract this.

<<...which you think will ensure social harmony.>>

Where do I presume this? Having merely asked what benefits studies into the genetics of race and IQ will provide is not indicative of this.

<<...you wish to promote an ideology which pre supposes that [all races are equal].>>

What I actually said:
“While "races" are clearly not physically equal ... this doesn't necessarily mean that some races are, overall, superior to others, or that we can objectively determine if they are or not.”

Retractions? Apologies?

“Determining if "races" are (genetically) mentally or criminogenically equal, on the other hand, is not only exceptionally difficult,".........

AJ, is not only "difficult", it is bloody impossible, because it presupposes that races are born equal in that condition, which is exactly the premise you have chosen for so long to avoid taking a position on. The reason being, that to prove that races are equal in intelligence or criminal inheritance would put the burden of proof on you to defend your half of the question. And you will never do that, because you just spent the last 15 pages ducking and weaving around it. To defend it, would mean that you would be obliged to debate fairly, with both sides clearly stating their positions, both sides giving reasoned arguments, both sides providing evidence to support their positions, and both sides examining each others logic and countering it.

Just when I think we are starting to straighten you out you backslide on me. Of course I only skim your posts. While ever I read that you are still pretending to claim that you are debating fairly, I know that you are spin doctoring and trying to lead me away from what you do not want discussed with a big bag of very smelly red herrings. AJ, I didn't just walk in from the sheep sheds. I know when you squirming and grasping desperately at any passing piece of flotsam to keep your argument afloat.

Races are not equal in appearance, although I am sure that egalitarians like yourself would even claim that if you could get away with it. Different physical appearances generally means different physical attributes, so you can't get way with that either. We are left with intelligence and inherited personality traits. My premise is, that different races are not equal in intelligence or personality traits, they are different. Now, what is your position on that? Don't play bloody games and beat around the bush. State your position plainly, for or against, and we will take if from there.

You sound very confused, LEGO. A classic symptom of being flustered.

<<AJ, is not only "difficult", it is bloody impossible…>>

So now you’re claiming that it’s impossible to find a genetic link between race and mentality, or race and criminogenic potential?

Then why do you think we can find an answer to this? Why do you want more genetic research done in this area? What is the “brotherhood” trying to suppress then?

I think you’ve just shot yourself in the foot there.

<<…because it presupposes that races are born equal in that condition...>>

How does what I said presuppose that “races” are “born equal”? And in what condition exactly?

Your sentences are becoming very disjointed.

<<…which is exactly the premise you have chosen for so long to avoid taking a position on.>>

“Avoid?” Oh boy. What part of the CTRL+F function do you not understand? I suppose if you overlook it, it didn’t happen. Is that right?

And what premise are you talking about now, anyway? That all races are born equal? I have never said that (in fact, I had even entertained the possibility that "races" are not all mentally or criminogenically equal at one point (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275386)), and it’s convenient that your new-found quoting ability stopped short of demonstrating that I had.

With that in mind, the rest of your post can be duly disregarded. But at least I had the courtesy not to skim it.

Pull yourself together, LEGO.

You have misquoted me by taking my quote completely out of context and then attacking a position based upon this misquote. I keep looking for some attempt by you to debate meaningfully, but all I see is a desire to spin doctor, stonewall, misquote, beat around the bush, toss red herrings everywhere, refuse to make obvious connections, contradict yourself, and generally do everything you can to stifle debate instead of promoting it.

And yes, I appreciate that you have made certain statements which had me thinking you were taking a position I could examine, only to have you denying that position in the next post with no clarification as to what your position was. That was the point where I began to suspect that you were deliberately being as vague as possible in order to derail the debate. The best example of which was where you openly admitted that you understood that genetics and crime are linked, and that criminologists already knew that. When I began an argument based upon what looked to me like a firm position, your next post had you hopping around in red faced apoplexy about my use of the word "concede". Everything you said after that gave the impression that you considered that genetics and crime were not linked.

It was about that time I really wondered what you were doing. Making contradictory statements is either proof of a disordered mind, or a intelligent but dishonest one. I then had to decide the old question of "is he dumb, or is he devious?" You will perhaps be delighted to know that I did not judge you to be dumb, at least in the idea that you have low intelligence. That left devious, and everything I have seen so far tells me that you are a devious little bugger who wants this debate to go around in circles forever.

Mind you, it gives me great encouragement that this is all you can manage. I plainly reveals to me that you already know that race, crime and genetics are linked and you need to avoid it.