...Continued

<<The head of the Human Genome Project, Nobel Prize winner, and co founder of the double helix structure of DNA, agreed with them, and got sacked from his job for being a heretic to the faith of human equality.>>

Already answered this here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275122, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275168, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275301.

I'm not going to repeat myself just because you skim posts and cannot retain information that does not agree with your worldview.

<<Since there is clear causal link between low intelligence and violent criminal behaviour...>>

Another spurious relationship.

If that were the case, then most people of low intelligence would be committing violent crimes. It's not that low intellect causes violent crime; more that those who commit violent crimes tend to have a lower IQ. But even that isn't as clear-cut as it seems because current IQ tests measure academic attainment more than intelligence and violent crimes are committed predominantly by youth (who are less likely to be interested in academic attainment) thus potentially skewing the results further.

I can keep going if you'd like?

<<Now, your view, is that the concept of race is "mostly a cultural construct.">>

Yes. A fluid concept too.

<<My interpretation of your premise is, that you are saying that "race" only exists in people's minds, and not in reality.>>

Here we going again.

How could I point to differences between races while simultaneously implying that they're an illusion?

While we're on the topic of my premises... You still haven't explained their relevance. Why is everyone else on OLO good enough to debate without requiring that others state their premises? That one's opponent is wrong is the only premise required.

Now please stop being evasive and explain this.

<<...if my conclusion is wrong, could you please explain what you mean when you say that race is "mostly a cultural construct'?>>

It means what it says. That the genetic difference is tiny in comparison to the cultural differences that we observe.

But if you can conjure such an obscure interpretation as the one above, the what good is elaborating going to do?

Hi AJ.

I went to bed last night predicting that you would reverting to heckling instead of debating. I know that you are in trouble, and that you would become even more prone to cutting up my posts into tiny snippits, replying with sneery one liners and Dorothy Dixer questions. I love it when my opponents do exactly what I think they will do.

The only "formula" or "rehearsed script" that I use to corner ideologues like yourself is a technique called "logic." I force my opponents to face what they most definitely do not want to face. Now, we are discussing racism, whether it is right or wrong. My position is that races do exist, and that they have different characteristics which can be examined and compared. You have an ideological position that comparing the characteristics of races is evil, so you will do anything to prevent any examination at all.

In our first debate, you managed to keep dodging the issues by maintaining a position that you had no position, other than that you opposed everything I said. That won't work this time. Because I won't accept a debate unless you state your position. So, you are trying to be as vague as possible in stating your position, and to heckle instead of debating.

To stop that, I have to stay on first principles. The only deliberately blurry position that you have IMPLIED so far, is that "race is mostly a cultural construct." Now, I know where you are heading with this, and I can demolish it. I asked you to clarify this position, so that there will be no attempt by you to claim that I am misrepresenting your position. Naturally, you completely dodged clarifying your position. You really know that your position is indefensible, don't you? But your problem is, that I am going to keep hammering you on this point and either you answer it, in which case you will lose the debate through logic, or you keep on prevaricating, in which case you will lose the debate by being clearly evasive to our readers.

So once again, LEGO, have resorted to the "sneers one-liner" defence, with claims of heckling because you cannot address the substance of my response. And once again, with no examples to back your claims.

Convenient that.

<<Now, we are discussing racism, whether it is right or wrong.>>

Only implicitly, not explicitly.

<<My position is that races do exist, and that they have different characteristics which can be examined and compared.>>

Your claims have progressed well beyond this, but yes.

<<You have an ideological position that comparing the characteristics of races is evil...>>

Once again you misrepresent me because you need me to stick to your rehearsed script. Where have I said or even implied this? I even made a generalised comparison myself before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283755).

<<...so you will do anything to prevent any examination at all.>>

You are the one evading my rebuttals.

<<In our first debate, you managed to keep dodging the issues by maintaining a position that you had no position, other than that you opposed everything I said.>>

Wrong, I stated my position multiple times (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108).

<<That won't work this time. Because I won't accept a debate unless you state your position.>>

I stated it here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283774, and here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276047.

I even clarified it for you in my last post when you put words in my mouth and asked if you were right.

<<I asked you to clarify this position, so that there will be no attempt by you to claim that I am misrepresenting your position. Naturally, you completely dodged clarifying your position.>>

You see? This is what happens when you skim others' posts. You run the risk of making a fool of yourself:

"It means what it says. That the genetic difference is tiny in comparison to the cultural differences that we observe." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283859)

You claim that I am the one being evasive and yet you have not answered any of my rebuttals. Suddenly they're no longer important, probably because you don't have any answers, and so you resort to claims of heckling that you cannot provide any examples of

There are races, and there is racism.

But racism is universally bad - just look around the world to see all the problems caused by ethnic, religious, cultural and 'colour' discrimination, rivalry, 'cleansing', and general conflict over perceived (and real) inequality, 'favour', lack of opportunity, repression, dominance, and irrational hatreds and feuds.

There are differences - real and superficial - and there will always be inequality; but it is time that the degree of inequality was reduced to acceptable levels, and that discrimination against any group (or in favour of any group) on the basis of race or 'class' was outlawed in all societies.

Blacks less intelligent or more prone to crime - merely by virtue of colour or genetic makeup? Absolute hogwash. Try disadvantage!
(Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, ...)

Exceptions to the 'rule'? There are less and more intelligent people in all societies, less and more aggressive, less and more crime-bent, less and more selfish and spiteful, less and more altruistic, less and more virtuous, less and more 'religious', and less and more disabled.

Nature plus Nurture (not irrespective of Nurture), plus life experience, is what makes an individual; not some genetic 'quirk'.

Genetic makeup only affords potential to achieve, but does almost nothing to determine attitudes or overt behavioural 'trends'.
Look to nurture and 'culture' for all the attitudinal failings and discrepancies behind racism, discrimination and aggressive bigotry.

We definitely need better education, globally.

Whites superior? Rubbish. We've just had greater opportunity, and have proportionately just as many dimwits as any other 'race' or 'culture' - except perhaps for those poisoned by industrial pollution.

(This only seems to relate to 'marriage equality' in respect of inter-racial partnering, and thus obliquely to multiculturalism - in respect of which I still favour limiting immigration, but based on individual merit only, and without any concern for 'ethnicity' or 'race' (except for a ban on any radical elements).
Mixed-marriage? No problem - it has been going on successfully for eons.

Thank you for conforming exactly to what I predicted you would do.

Now, let's get this straight. I am too smart to allow you to debate me unless you state your position. I will not allow a debate where you can attack my freely stated position, but I can't do the same thing to you. You might say that you believe that racism is wrong, because races don't really exist. Or you can say that races are equal in every way except physical appearance. You can state whatever argument convinced you that the principle of racism is invalid. But if you will not state your debating position, then you are wasting my time.

And if you will not state your position, the reason why is because you already know that your arguments are indefensible. Your position is not based upon logic or reason, it is based upon some World Saving ideology where every race MUST be considered equal, regardless of whether they are or not.

Before I go, who do you think your are kidding with your theatrics and grandstanding? You are studying Criminology, which is a science. If you are unable to look at a topic objectively, and critically examine it without over ruling it completely in your own mind with some Alice in Wonderland philosophy, then could I respectively suggest that you do not have what it takes to be a scientist? Perhaps you should change to become a climate scientist, where rigorous objectivity does not seem to be the most prominent virtue they possess, and where suppression of facts which opposes their view is considered fair play?

I hope you don't think I was insulting you with that last statement. It was a genuine desire to help you fit in within a career where people think like you do.

Anyhoo. State your position on racism or crawl away. And know that by doing it, you know that you are beaten. Because you can never state your position on racism and debate fairly with an opponent on this topic, because you know you will lose.

Saltpetre.

Racism is not universally bad. Racism can be defined as "loyalty to ones own people". There is nothing wrong with loyalty. It is considered to be a virtue. Next, "affirmative action" is an act of racism. You could say that "affirmative action" is meant to help the poor and disadvantaged, and I may even agree with you. But once you accept that racism is OK provided that the reason for it is justifiable, then you have just crossed the Rubicon, and you can never say that racism is universally bad again.

If you wish to outlaw discrimination towards any race in Australia, then you had better look at all of the laws giving "aborigines" legal, social and financial advantages over everybody else.

Now, you have trouble accepting that in general, black people are not real bright. OK, I could start off with the AIDS epidemic and remind you that one reason for it's spread in Africa is because black men won't wear condoms. Smart huh? Another is that there is a belief in South Africa that raping a virgin will cure AIDS and female babies are being raped to get this "cure". Smart huh? Then there are the "Injectionists" who roam around Africa with dirty needles injecting people with snake oil remedies to cure everything. Smart huh?

I lived through I time, Saltpetre, when Africa and Asia were both as equally poor as one another. South Korea and Ghana had the same GDP in 1955. Both were former colonies. Both had severe poverty. Despite billions in UN aid, Ghana has gone backwards, while South Korea is the 14th largest economy on Earth. What caused the difference, was the difference in intelligence between the two races.

Your premise that there are smart and dumb people in all races, and violent people in all races, is correct. But what we are looking at is proportions. The proportion of smart to dumb people differs between races. And the proportion of people with a genetic predisposition to extreme violence appears to be different between the races as well, going by published crime statistics.