Still as evasive as ever, LEGO.

<<A "debate" is a civilised discussion between two or more people where one side takes a position and the other takes an opposing view.>>

Wrong. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate)

No-one has to "take" (have imposed upon them) any particular set view as you're trying to imply.

<<Both sides submit reasoned arguments supporting their positions, and both sides analyse and critique their opponents arguments.>>

Correct.

You took the position that some races were genetically predisposed to criminal behaviour and that some races were more intelligent than others, while my position was that "race" is mostly a cultural construct and that there is no evidence for your claims, and many other explanations for your observations.

<<What we were debating was racism. Either racism is valid, or it is not.>>

Only implicitly, not explicitly.

<<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.>>

This is a false dichotomy and oversimplifies the definition of racism, despite me having clarified it earlier (how can you claim to be serious about debating?). And where does the ideal that all "races" should be respected as "equals" (i.e. fellow human beings) come into this too?

<<If your position is not exactly that, and you wish to qualify that premise, then what is your position?>>

Just stated it above. And in the last thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276047

<<All you want to do is attack my position while avoiding any responsibility to defend your own.>>

You still haven't explained how me having to defend my position affects the veracity of yours.

<<The ball is in your side of the court.>>

Actually, it's still in yours. You still have a lot of concessions and retractions to make. Fat chance, eh?

I will leave it to the judgement of our readers as to who is prevaricating, and who is not.

You have submitted in your last post that "race is a social construct."

If race is only a "social construct", then you are IMPLYING that the concept of "races" does not exist in reality. Therefore, all of the people in every "race" must be equal, because "races" don't really exist anyway..

But when I suggested that this is your position, you called it a "false dichotomy" and an "oversimplification". OK then, qualify your position. Because as it appears, it is a clear contradiction.

I think you are trying the old "Always imply, but when challenged, deny" school of dishonest debating. But here is your chance to prove me wrong. Explain the contradiction. Either races exist, or they do not. If they are only a "social construct", then you are IMPLYING that they do not exist in reality. If they do not exist in reality, then everybody must be equal in every way.

Now, unlike you, I am not afraid to say what I think. I don't have to be evasive. I don't have to talk in implications. My logic is not a contradiction. I can speak plainly because I don't have to skirt around the truth and watch what I say.

And you know what, AJ? It shows in my delivery. I come across as someone who is not scared to speak his mind, while you come across as a sneaky little devil who is very careful about what he says. And the only explanation to that, is that you know that races exist in reality, and that the different races have different characteristics which can be compared and assessed.

But you can never concede it. Because your socialist ideology insists that everybody is equal. And so, just like every other ideological zealot who puts more importance on ideological conformism to holy orthodoxy, than any obligation to examine issues objectively, you perform the most amazing mental gymnastics to avoid what you fear to contemplate.

Online Opinion or Online Debate I thought this site was about opinions ( Belief based on grounds short of proof, view held as probable, what one thinks about something) Debate ( Fight for victory, territory, take part in a similar discussion being deliberate in one's mind )
I much prefer to read someone's opinion, rather than the I am right you are wrong attitude, A J Phillips versus Lego, lets keep it as opinions.

Forget evasiveness, LEGO. You can't even be honest even when you do try to address what I say...

<<You have submitted in your last post that "race is a social construct.">>

No, I said it was "MOSTLY a cultural construct" [emphasis added] (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283774). I acknowledged certain differences before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283755) as well as in the last thread. However, this is generalising and thus fraught with problems.

Once again, no contradictions.

With that being said, the rest of your post may be disregarded since it relies on your twisting of my words to fit your narrative and black-and-white view of the world.

Still waiting for the evidence of, and/or your retractions for, all your slanderous claims. And you have the audacity to claim that you're not being evasive.

I know that opinions are more your style, Onjab. Debating is for adults.

To AJ

Then you are saying that the concept of race "is MOSTLY a cultural construct. If the concept of race is MOSTLY a cultural construct, then it must be PARTIALLY something else. I am fascinated to know what else this unknown factor could be. Could you please clarify what this is? This is very important because if we are debating whether racism is valid or not, then it is essential that we both have the same concept of what "a race" is.

I predict that you will not answer me, because I think that you are deliberately qualifying the concept of race, because you can see the contradiction in your own logic, and you need to toss a red herring to keep me from pursuing it.

As to my "slanderous claims", my premise (see how it does not bother me to plainly state my position? You don't have to use The Rack to get it out of me) is that races are a social construct (or "cultural construct") of the very real recognisable differences in human sub species. These sub species, just like animal sub species, have recognisably different temperaments, physical appearances, physical attributes, and intelligence levels.

The differences in human sub species in regards physical appearances is self evident. The differences in physical attributes such as solar resistance of skin, exceptional running abilities of blacks, and the exceptional swimming abilities of whites, is self evident. And if races differ in physical appearances and physical attributes, then it is reasonable to presume that they differ in mental attributes as well.

These last two premises conform to observable reality. Asians are over represented in higher learning facilities, and blacks very much under represented. Black communities are universally dysfunctional. Black people from are very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour in every society they inhabit. It is therefore a reasonable assumption to conclude that certain black ethnicities have a much higher proportion of people who are genetically prone to serious criminal behaviour than for whites and Asians.

AJ Philips "Racism isn't just the belief that races are not equal"

Wiki's page on Racism mentions many opinions and actions under that heading.
*All* of these elements are not necessarily present in every individual who professes a "racist" perspective.

For some people it may only constitute a belief in inequality and nothing more.

And that belief does not automatically produce any particular action or preferred policy.

This is what's wrong with the perpetual association of Nazis and KKK with any White Australian who rejects panculturalism.

Yes, the Nazis and KKK were "racist".
That doesn't mean all "racists" believe or want the same things or will act in the same ways as the Nazis and KKK.

Most "racists" are not "Romper Stomper".
Historically, they're more the "gentleman with a pipe and large book by the fireplace" type.

WmTrevor, "given more intermixing whites could evolve to have both 'superior physical attributes' [Negroid] and be 'most intelligent' [Mongoloid]."

In a reality where only the *best* genetic traits were inherited, yes.
But allele expression is *random*.

We could end up with the weakest, stupidest people imaginable.

We could end up impulsively violent [Negroid] with tiny penises [Mongoloid].

Whites already have a pretty good brawn/brain balance.
That's why we've been so successful at so many things and perform poorly at virtually nothing.

Why mess with a good thing?

The Human Development Index, GDP-per-capita and a very long list of scientific and artistic achievements say Whites are doing fine just the way they are.