AJ,

I guess culture is a 'moving feast', evolving with technology, science, knowledge and situation or predicament.
Mass immigration may be a 'predicament', but I don't quite see marriage equality in the same light.

However, given the hurdles any couple has to go through to adopt (at least in Oz), perhaps those restrictions and scrutiny provisions do act to allay some of my reservations about gay 'marriage' - but I retain some (perhaps illogical) concerns about 'universal' maintenance of appropriate relevant scrutiny (of adoptee hetero- or gay- couples, married or otherwise).

Perhaps I have only one final obstacle, and that is how large parts of the 'traditional world' may ultimately view the continued movement of the 'West' towards libertarian and laissez-faire attitudes towards human societal 'relations'.
Might we be risking derision, lack of trust, or even enmity?

In the end result I still retain some reservations about the essentiality and even the efficacy or prudence of this proposed further step into the 'brave new world'.
Timidity or caution, or some of both.
I am yet to be convinced, but 'evolution' will perhaps roll on regardless.

What utter rubbish, LEGO.

<<...I realised that you had no intention of debating at all.>>

I addressed everything you said with evidence and reasoning. That's a debate.

<<If you wish to debate racism again, could you please choose the normal anti racist position and stick to the principle that all races are equal?>>

Why? My arguments wouldn't change. You're effectively admitting that you need me to adopt a certain line so that you can divert attention from the weaknesses in yours. What part of "any problems with my beliefs do not necessarily make his right" did you not understand?

<<Because either racism is wrong because all races are equal (or don't even exist), or they are not equal, which is the position of us racists.>>

Racism isn't just the belief that races are not equal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism. That would make someone who acknowledged that Jamaicans, on average, tend to be better runners than, say, Asians.

<<Your position in our last "debate" was that you had no position.>>

Show me where I said that.

I made my position abundantly clear multiple times. I did, however, say that I didn't need a position other than that you were wrong.

<<You just sat back and pooh poohed everything I said.>>

No, I discredited it with evidence and reason. There's a difference.

<<Your replies were just heckling.>>

Try finding one example: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0

<<I had to try and figure out what your position was from the vague and sometimes contradictory comments you made.>>

I clarified the alleged contradiction three times! (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108)

<<My mistake,was to think that you were genuinely trying to debate and were just a bit vague in your logic. It was only when I figured out that you were being deliberately evasive that I realised that you were up to no good.>>

And yet you couldn't (and still can’t) substantiate any of these claims.

<<If you are smart enough to know that you can't win a fair debate against an honest opponent...>>

Oh, spare me. You were only honest up until you started running out of arguments.

Continued…

…Continued

You twisted my words to fit a certain worldview you needed from me; misquoted me on two occasions (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275300, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275532); falsely accused me of refusing to state my position because it wasn't the one you were needing for your rehearsed script (as you have now effectively admitted); you accused me of insincere intentions and could not back the accusation; and you continued to accuse me of contradicting myself despite the fact that I demonstrated otherwise three times (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108).

<<You gave the game away when you finally blurted out that if I was right "what good would it do?" That is the position of an ideological zealot, not a scientist that you claimed to be.>>

I never once said that was my position. I simply pointed out that it was a valid research question from an ethics point-of-view. Nor did I ever claim to be a scientist. Links and/or quotes please.

<<The position of the intelligent, inquiring mind, is "Let the truth be told...">>

Yes, and a rational mind weighs up the risks and benefits of making potentially dangerous discoveries. Which is why I was asking what benefits you thought would come from discovering that certain races were genetically prone to criminality or less intelligent. A question you couldn't answer.

But this is a non-issue anyway because - given all the biological, psychological, sociological and environmental factors at work - we already have enough information to know that research into a genetic link between race and intelligence and/or criminality would be futile. With all the above mentioned factors at work, it would be like trying to unbake a cake. Not to mention that we know enough about genetics to understand that such discovery would be exceptionally unlikely to be made.

It is for these reasons why no-one bothers to do such research; while I'm sure there are some far-right neo-nazi groups willing and able to fund such research, those who are qualified to conduct it are educated enough to understand that these kinds of views are based on ignorance.

Which is why you need to resort to all these lies.

Hi Saltpetre.

That is a really nice philosophy that you have. But I am not concerned with philosophy, I am concerned with cold, hard scientific facts, observable reality, and how they affect my society.

I am a racist, in that I think it self evident that races and ethnicities in general are different to one another in physical appearances, physical capabilities, and mental attributes. But we have philosophers like yourself who think that these qualities either do not exist, or are so unimportant that they are irrelevant to creating a peaceful and prosperous society. Your philosophy, that everyone is equal, has been around for a long time. Socialists once proclaimed that "class" was an illusion, and that everyone in every society had the same levels of intelligence, and that the very real differences in economic outcomes and criminal behaviour between these illusory "classes" was caused entirely by privilege and a lack of educational opportunities This particular version of socialism has now gone out of favour, by virtue of the fact that the social climbing socialists who used to extol it were the biggest snobs in society.

Socialist ideology has now been updated to the concept that "races" are an illusion and that everybody is equal. Both "class" and "race" may be social constructs, but they are names for abstract concepts which do exist.

Generally speaking, those black races which have not benefitted by millennia of civilisation are not intelligent, have poor emotional maturity, and have generally superior physical attributes (superb athletes). The Asians are the most intelligent, but are not well endowed with physical attributes and make generally poor athletes, while the whites are in between.

Such a position adequately explains the differences in athletic success, economic success, and prevalence of criminal behaviour

My position is, that I am fed up of my white race being constantly blamed for the dysfunctions of black people (which is racism) by socialist "anti racists" who are always prepared to massage the facts to conform to their peculiar worldview. So I looked for credible reasons for black dysfunction, and I found them.

To AJ.

A "debate" is a civilised discussion between two or more people where one side takes a position and the other takes an opposing view. Both sides submit reasoned arguments supporting their positions, and both sides analyse and critique their opponents arguments.

What we were debating was racism. Either racism is valid, or it is not. I take the view that racism is valid, and that races have generally different physical and mental attributes. If your view is that racism is invalid, then your position must be the opposite of mine, and you are therefore proposing the premise that all races are equal in every way. If your position is not exactly that, and you wish to qualify that premise, then what is your position? Don't repeat that "I have already told you" crap. State your position right now, so that everybody on this topic knows what it is (including me) or crawl away in defeat before we even begin. Because if you will not clearly and plainly state your position, it is because you are too frightened too. It is therefore self evident that you are doing so because you know that you are supporting a position which you already know is invalid. And you do not wish to be in the position of defending the indefensible. All you want to do is attack my position while avoiding any responsibility to defend your own.

Because of my trusting nature, you can catch me once, but you are never going to fool me twice. State your position now, or crawl away.

The ball is in your side of the court.

That seems an unnecessarily negative peculiar worldview, LEGO...

"My position is, that I am fed up of my white race being constantly blamed ..."

On the bright side, and using your descriptions, given more intermixing whites could evolve to have both 'superior physical attributes' and be 'most intelligent'.

That would put those '"anti racists"' in their place!