…Continued

<<I know you are against racism, the question is why?>>

Because it is based on ignorance. You demonstrate this with your ignorance of the numerous sociological, psychological, criminological and other biological explanations for your observations; and your willingness to assume that genes explain it all, without any evidence. Furthermore, the first Oxford definition of racism describes an idea that is invalid until one can objectively, demonstrably and reliably measure characteristics, abilities or qualities to the extent that claims regarding the inferiority or superiority of any given races are demonstrable. Good luck in justifying the second definition even if you could demonstrate the first.

<<Do you think that races do not exist, except in people's imaginations?>>

For the second time now… How could I think this while simultaneously regarding race as a mostly-cultural construct?

<<…this time I will predict for our readers that you will play games and prevaricate. You have to.>>

Bzzzzt!

Now here are MY predictions (and I want your readers to pay very close attention here):

1. You will assume genetic links for your observations, while not addressing other explanations that are more grounded in evidence;

2. When you exhaust all your arguments for any given point, your next response will contain the words, “Your premise is…”, in an attempt to divert attention from your failed point;

3. The alleged premise of mine will not only be wrong, but totally unrelated to anything I’ve ever said;

4. When I demonstrate that your assumption regarding my premise is wrong, you will accuse me of implications on my behalf that you cannot and will not support;

5. You will eventually fall back to grand conspiracies of socialists blocking research on your pet theory, despite there being decades worth of it http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=race+and+intelligence&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1;

6. When I ask what benefits you foresee in a discovery proving your assumed links between race and intelligence or race and criminality, you will refuse to answer and attempt to divert attention from the fact by claiming that I just want to stifle debate.

Over to you, my predictable friend.

I read the first few lines of your last post and was not in the least surprised to see that you were procrastinating again. Didn't bother with the rest. State your position or pick up your ball and go home.

Cheers.

Oh, but I already did, LEGO.

<<State your position or pick up your ball and go home.>>

You're going have to be polite enough to read what I wrote to find it.

Or perhaps you just want me to state it again briefly so that your readers wake up this morning and don't bother to scroll up and see my continued exposing of your flawed logic that further reveals your insincerity and lies; or maybe you don't want them to see my predictions of where you'll go next so that you can feel more comfortable in going there.

Perhaps it's just that you don't realise that computers have a 'copy and paste' function (hey, you didn't know about the CTRL+F function) and are hoping that I'll re-type my answer to your question using a slightly different wording that allows you to extract an alleged premise of mine that you need from me in order to continue?

Or maybe my suspicions on the previous thread, regarding why you refuse to link back to past posts or quote anyone, were right: you're an out-of-sight-out-of-mind kinda guy. You feel that if you can distract with a post that ignores the uncomfortable revelations in your opponents' (while making more unfounded slanderous claims), then it never happened. You must think your readers have the memories of goldfish. This would also explain why you stop shortly after the "One quarter back" option needs to be selected to view the thread and skim others' posts.

Which leads me to my next prediction:

7. Shortly after the "One quarter back" option needs to be selected to view this thread, you'll stop posting based on the assumption that your readers will stop reading or not realise that the "One quarter back" option needs to be selected to view the thread.

Boy have I seen that backfire on people! (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#163620)

You do realise there are email alert that your readers can set up, don't you?

You’ve gone mighty quite there, LEGO.

Was the position that I stated not the one you were banking on? That never seemed to stop you conjuring a totally unrelated interpretation of my position in the past. What’s different this time? Was it my predictions of where you would turn next? It was the predictions, wasn’t it? That had to be very confronting to have what you subconsciously do laid right out in front of you like that.

Oh well, perhaps the next time I speak disparagingly of racist ideas you’ll think twice before popping your head in to slag off at me. You have to be seriously deluded to have convinced yourself of the accusations you made on the last thread; to the point where you could so arrogantly and foolishly hand me another opportunity to reveal the dishonesty of your claims and the vacuousness of your arguments in general.

There was only one person here willing to debate race “like a grown up” [sic], and it certainly wasn’t you.