I agree with every observation of Kenny pertaining to you Sir, minus the color coded description.

If you were to say, go home and take to your hide with boot polish? The only thing you would have changed is its color! Not the boorish, parsimonious, hair splitting nit picker inside it?

I say that while essentially agreeing with your take on firearms, likely the only thing you I and Pauline, would have in common?

You have a very nice day now and try not to get too upset by the "white" visage returning your inquisitorial gaze from your mirror?

Opps sorry, I included the word white in describing you! A thousand apologies Sir, I was only referring to your actual skin color not your perceived character!

Which given your entirely self centred, I'm allright Jack, take on welfare and social justice, is I believe, only black on the inside?
Alan B.

You Sir are a raving idiot,now be a good little racist and crawl back under the rock you hide under

To David David Leyonhjelm.

I was once a young trendy lefty, but I grew out of it. The first leftist contradiction that got me questioning the leftist holy writ, was the fact that so many so called "anti racists" were quite obviously racist towards white people. Far from white, democratic secular society being a model for every successful modern society which in some way emulated it, to leftists, the white race was responsible for everything that ever went wrong with the world. Any unacceptable and dysfunctional behaviour by any minority group anywhere, could be blamed on white people, with a little judicious pushing and shoving of the facts.

One of my favourite hobbies is pointing out to every so called "anti racist" on OLO (and a bunch of other debate sites) is that what they have just said about white people is racist. It absolutely floors them. They have become so used to the idea of making racist statements about white people, that they think it is completely normal. Only a few days ago on OLO, Thomas O'Reilly said this.

"Australia is a sovereign democratic based nation and we do not need thousands of corrupt, untrustworthy, psychopathic, narcissistic and out of touch fundamentalist bigoted white men and women Christian zealots, mainly from dysfunctional families, telling us how to run our country."

Then he complained that what he said was not racist. You be the judge.

Here is a perfect example of leftist doublethink. They are so used to simply chanting leftist slogans that they have obviously never turned on their critical analysis circuits and examined their own ideology.

Now, if non whites can take white people to court under S18C, and prosecute them for making racist statements about non whites, whites can do the same thing to people who make racist statements about whites. To argue otherwise is racist. It is obvious from the reactions of the ABC minions toward you, that this idea of racial equality is anathema to them. In their Alice in Socialist Wonderland worldview, whites are always wrong, and non white minorities are always right.

It seems to depend on the slope of the level playing field. In general whites in Oz have the high ground and it's hard to be offended by the name "whitey". An Aboriginal Land Council with skin-toning melanin of the coffee Bondi-suntan tint could receive a complaint from a latte fawn-olive hued constituent - "we don't need fundamentalist black men telling us how to run our Land Council".
The power clout of the macho bronzed heavy-charcoal stud would negate
the insult , would it not. Differently from a whitey saying it.

Good on you David. One of the very few politicians who takes free speech seriously. And the only one who is consistent in his approach to all matters of legislation rather than simply voting whatever way he thinks will be most popular today. Keep it up,

I was impressed by Mr Leyonjhelm's ability to articuate his views. Alan and Mr Ryan have a right to hold opposing views, but will have to try harder to convince the rest of us. Given that racist has become such an emotive insult, people who use it should be prepared to clearly explain why they chose to do so.

Nicknamenick, could you please stop sucking on your crack pipe before you write anything?

Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 20 September 2016 12:13:30 PM
"One of my favourite hobbies is pointing out to every so called "anti racist" on OLO (and a bunch of other debate sites) is that what they have just said about white people is racist. It absolutely floors them. They have become so used to the idea of making racist statements about white people, that they think it is completely normal.
//Only a few days ago on OLO, Thomas O'Reilly said this.//
Then he complained that what he said was not racist. You be the judge." [end quote]

When the cat is away, the mice will say anything?

LEGO cherry-picked a small part of my comment, and in so doing he has misrepresented/verballed me.

Anyone interested in the truth can see what I wrote IN FULL here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18523#329642

The most pertinent bit goes: "However, maybe LEGO really meant or wanted to say: Australia is a sovereign ...."

It was NOT a declaration of my opinion. It was a MOCKED UP HYPOTHETICAL SATIRICAL response which intentionally exaggerated the "attitude" behind what LEGO had said - an UNTRUE RACIST GENERALISATION of "out of touch foreigners from dysfunctional societies telling us how to run our country" to show how illogical, untrue, RACIST and HURTFUL LEGOs statement was in it's ESSENCE.

I took that and showed how it sounds being on the other end of it - by flipping LEGOS words/tone to 'whites'.

LEGO can see RACISM in what I mocked up, but he cannot see it in his own words. It's called a "teaching moment", he missed. Instead he "crowed" eg now on this thread, but also here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18523&page=0#329730
and here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18523&page=0#329748

Re-using LEGOs own words again: "They have become so used to the idea of making racist statements about _______ people, that they think it is completely normal."

Nor is this thread an accident or a co-incidence:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7466

It's 'real life' on social media. Words matter! Choose wisely.
-

//The basis of the complaint is that Kenny said I demonstrated “certitude” as a consequence of being an “angry white male”//

And having “certitude” is “reasonably likely” to offend? Good luck getting that one past the court.

//but in my opinion Kenny’s remarks about me were outside the court’s narrow interpretation of ‘fair comment’.//

It's not really your opinion that counts here. I think it's quite probable that Kenny's remarks will be regarded as fair comment. You are an angry male. Although I'd describe your colour more as pink than white - obviously nobody around here has ever met somebody with albinism.

Na...
18c has got to go, it's discordinate. 18c should become the minor fifth, not the major first!

LEGO
My crack pipe gives colourful language , you don't like it?
From the article:
"Furthermore, to the extent that racist attitudes are present in society, it assumes these will change if it is unlawful to express them. This is false; unless it can be heard and robustly challenged, racism will simply be driven underground."
The blue boys ( white and black) knock on your door if you have a noisy party at 3am with 6 dogs barking and drag races. The neighbours can be heard challenging it with robust insults and fence palings to drive the hoons underground.

To Thomas O'Reilly.

You made a sarcastic racist statement that was the mirror image of my own racist statement (with improvements). I can make racist statements because I am a racist. But you may not make racist statements, even in sarcasm or in jest, if you claim that you are not racist. Racist jokes are still racist. Racist sarcasm is still racism. Bill Leak found that out a few weeks ago when he published a sarcastic racist cartoon about aboriginals in "The Australian" newspaper and was threatened with prosecution under S18C.

This is another example of left wing double standards. Lefties can make sarcastic racist jokes, but white people may not.

To nicknamenick.

On second thought, please continue smoking your crack pipe and writing the incredible drivel that you seem to think is clever. Even Arjay is getting embarrassed by your peculiar posts. It does my side no end of good to have people like yourself as opponents, so that any impartial reader can see for themselves the difference in intellect between those who support leftism, and those who are on the right.

Please keep it up. As a matter of fact, since you appear to think that being an idiot is akin to displaying high intelligence, get even more creative and obtuse. And thank you for your positive contribution to the right side of politics.

Its a difficult ethical dilemma for those opposed to these legislative attacks on our freedoms to use the very legislation as a tool. How can you oppose 18c and then use it against your opponents? But I think that the good Senator has hit the right note here by using the legislation to mock the legislation and to make the point that it isn't being used and was never intended to be used in an equal fashion. It was always intended as a tool to allow the so-called disadvantaged to hit back at the so-called advantaged.

Of course its always been sold as being entirely fair and open to all citizens to assuage their offense and insulting behaviour, but it is, in reality a tool to enforce 'progressive' attitudes. Leyonhjelm has simply pointed out that the emperor has no clothes and the problem for the 'progressives' is that, if they reject his claims, they are effectively conceding that point.

A similar dilemma faces those opposed to censorship. How can those opposed to censorship use it. Bill Leak does a cartoon that offends the sensibilities of those of a certain bent and they race off to the press council to complain. There is no dilemma for them since that is what the press council was created for - to suppress certain views. But censorship opponents can't or don't call in the 'umpire' when offended by "Death to those who oppose Islam" signs because they are opposed to censorship. Thus the field is open to the censorious.

Its quite a dilemma and clearly just arguing the case against 18c or press censorship from a freedom of speech perspective is largely futile because the supporters of 18c and censorship only pay lip service to freedom of speech.

So the Leyonhjelm suit hits just the right mocking note. It'll be interesting to see the outcome.

LEGO,

So what’s the difference between people who are on the Left and Right, and those who support Leftism and those who support Rightism?

<<…so that any impartial reader can see for themselves the difference in intellect between those who support leftism, and those who are on the right.>>

More importantly, why did you compare “those who support leftism” with “those who are on the right”? If there’s a difference between those who ‘are’ and those who ‘support’, wouldn’t it make more sense to compare the ‘ares’ with the ‘ares’ and the ‘supporters’ with the ‘supporters’, rather than the ‘ares’ of one side with the ‘supporters’ of the other?

Speaking of intelligence, studies suggest that both those on the Left and those who support Leftism (whatever the difference there may be) are, on average, the more intelligent ones.

http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf

TLDR: Conservatism is evolutionarily hardwired into us, so something as novel as a concern for billions whom are not related, requires a unique intelligence.

Leftism: because you can make anything sound like a crazy ideology if you just add an -ist or an -ism.

"Speaking of intelligence, studies suggest that both those on the Left and those who support Leftism (whatever the difference there may be) are, on average, the more intelligent ones."

Yes, use iffy IQ estimates to prove the group you belong to is more intelligent. Never mind the inherent and enormous uncertainties in that data.

BUT use less iffy IQ estimates to 'prove' that some races are less intelligent than others? That the black race is the least intelligent of all the races? Best not go there.

LEGO
You called me a leftie but my posts are about law and order under Police vigilance. Aboriginal cultural rights are..not leftie are they?

@LEGO pg2, let me help.

Satire, the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Satire is not Sarcasm. Sarcasm is not Satire. I use Satire and Irony often. I can also speak straight to the point, provide supporting references, it depends. I also crack 'jokes' but humour is in the ear of the hearer. I educate. I teach by example and "role playing" what it would look like 'IF xyz'.

Lego says: "Lefties can make sarcastic racist jokes, but white people may not." Plus: "You made a sarcastic racist statement ..."

There is a serious flaw in Lego's logic: I'za white boy bro - celtic anglo saxon french bavarian dna. I'm related to Prince William going back to Henry VIII and signatories of the Magna Carta. Not only can I count, I am a Count. :-)

I am no "leftie". I am a Moderate. I 'fit' the great silent majority of Australians. Moderate in views, behaviour, typically law abiding, hard working, family orientated and respectful/tolerant of our fellow Australians.

Moderates make political voting decisions based upon issues. What they know of the facts relying upon personal values, social cohesion, and not on narrow ideologies.

Political ideology is a belief system no different than fundamentalist religious beliefs, usually includes a high degree of bigotry and narcissism by default. It typically refutes reason, critical thinking, and evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

Moderates vote for all Political parties, the Liberals, Nationals, LNP, CLP, Labor, Greens, LibDems, Christian parties, Shooters Fishers, Independents, One Nation, Xenophon and so on.

It's a well known fact that most attracted to politics on internet forums come from the extreme limits on 'the Bell Curve' iow fundamentalists of various persuasions.

I'm very different, I come here to spread the enlightened word of the great unwashed, that Silent Moderate Majority of Australia. The Voters who decide when a change in Government is required - the Swingers Party? ;-)

I support Leyonhjelm making this HRC complaint. Should I repeat that?
-

mhaze,

I’m well aware of the problems with IQ scores. Apparently you're not, however.

I’ve tried to explain to LEGO many times why IQ scores are problematic when he uses them to support the idea that other races are more stupid than us, but he refuses to acknowledge the problems. So he shouldn’t have a problem acknowledging the results in the study that I linked to above. At least not if he wants to remain consistent.

<<BUT use less iffy IQ estimates to 'prove' that some races are less intelligent than others?>>

Less iffy? How do you figure they're less iffy when used to compare races?

So long as studies use samples with an even distribution of education levels and people from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, comparing IQ scores on the political spectrum is far less problematic.

<<That the black race is the least intelligent of all the races? Best not go there.>>

Why not? Plenty have. Apparently.

There’s nothing wrong with doing so, so long as one can acknowledge the reasons as to why the differences exist (e.g. cultural differences, education levels, socioeconomic statuses). But if it were purely genetic, as LEGO believes it is, then African Americans must be evolving quickly (and along with their education levels too, coincidentally). At the rate they’re going, they’ll have ‘evolved’ to become smarter than white Americans in about 30 years.

Of course, your “best not go there” comparison is flawed anyway because, unlike a political position, race/ethnicity is something that people are born with and cannot change. LEGO used to make the same mistake. When he was posting as 'redneck', he thought he had caught Lefties out when they commented on how he really was a redneck. The nom de plume was used to bait Lefties. What LEGO didn't realise, however, is that the comparison was flawed because being a redneck is a choice, whereas being born a certain race isn't.

Hi AJ, I presumed that the reason I have not heard a peep from you for months. Is that because you are still in shock from the last time I ripped you a new A-hole?

I have no conception of what you are talking about when you take to task my manner of speech. I could have said "those who support rightism" but the word rightism" is not in general use. Even my Wordperfect grammer checker does not underline the word "leftism", because recognises the word. But when I write "rightism", the program underlines it in red because it does not recognise the word.

Now you are claiming to provide scientific proof that lefties are smarter than righties. You have submitted one scientific paper to support this. Interestingly, the paper you submitted asserts that criminals have a lower intelligence that non criminals. Haven't you previously denounced that idea? What does that paper therefore imply about aborigines and other black people who are very disproportionately over represented in criminal behaviour?

Cmon. AJ. If you support one part of this scientific paper you just submitted, you have to support it all. Or you may agree with that part which supports your view, and reject that which does not, and concede that I can do the same.

Cute, LEGO.

<<I presumed that the reason I have not heard a peep from you for months. Is that because you are still in shock from the last time I ripped you a new A-hole?>>

You are yet to do that.

<<I could have said "those who support rightism" but the word rightism" is not in general use.>>

Could it be because those not on the Right don’t need to use emotive language? How often do you hear "Rightist"? Not very, but it's validity as a term is acknowledged.

<<Now you are claiming to provide scientific proof that lefties are smarter than righties.>>

“Proof” might be a strong word. Evidence would be more appropriate. What was that I was saying about emotive language?

<<Interestingly, the paper you submitted asserts that criminals have a lower intelligence that non criminals.>>

Yes, they do, on average.

<<Haven't you previously denounced that idea?>>

No, never.

<<What does that paper therefore imply about aborigines and other black people who are very disproportionately over represented in criminal behaviour?>>

That their average IQ is lower. (See my post to mhaze.)

<<Cmon. AJ. If you support one part of this scientific paper you just submitted, you have to support it all. Or you may agree with that part which supports your view, and reject that which does not, and concede that I can do the same.>>

C’mon, LEGO. Stop trying to misrepresent my position or anything I’ve said in the past. The fact that you need to do this ad nauseum is a testament to your inability to have ever “ripped [me] a new A-hole”.

AJ,

I'm not sure where you stand on this and I suspect that makes two of us.

One the one hand you tell me that you lecture LEGO on why the "IQ scores are problematic when he uses them to support the idea that other races are more stupid than us" but somehow think I'm not "aware of the problems with IQ scores" when I make the same point.

Just to be absolutely clear, I think the whole notion of assigning a number to individual or group 'intelligence' is inherently ridiculous and highly subjective and therefore any conclusions drawn from that assignment of a number are inherently highly questionable.

The little study you relied on asks a small sample of kids a few lingusitic questions and assigned an IQ based on their answers. It, like so many such studies, was more in the realm of gathering the 'data' to support the pre-ordained solution.

mhaze,

Okay, so I should have said that it didn't appear that you knew WHY IQ scores were a problem. How could you if you thought that IQ scores were more “iffy” when comparing the two sides of the political spectrum?

<<Just to be absolutely clear, I think the whole notion of assigning a number to individual or group 'intelligence' is inherently ridiculous and highly subjective and therefore any conclusions drawn from that assignment of a number are inherently highly questionable.>>

Ridiculous? How does someone who believes that IQ scores are ridiculous come to the conclusion (incorrectly) that they’re less “iffy” when applied to racial groups than they are when applied to the different sides of the political spectrum?

Anyway, as problematic as IQ scores are, they become less so when used with larger sample sizes. If IQ scores really were as useless as you imply, then we wouldn’t see consistently lower averages in samples consisting of individuals with lower socioeconomic status and education levels. We should be able to take multiple sample groups from both low and high socioeconomic/education/criminal (take your pick) demographics and see no relationship between IQ and the groups, yet that’s not what we see.

<<The little study you relied on asks a small sample of kids a few lingusitic questions and assigned an IQ based on their answers. It, like so many such studies, was more in the realm of gathering the 'data' to support the pre-ordained solution.>>

Well that’s putting it very emotively now, isn't it? One hundred and thirty-two is a bit more than a "few", and they weren't all exactly "kids". That was only the first study upon which the analysis was based too. The second study consisted of thousands of people.

Besides, this coming from someone who cited a single discredited study, that even admitted that it went against the findings of every other study, as evidence that same-sex parenting was detrimental to children is a bit rich.

To AJ.

It's bit hard to know what your position on any subject is, because your standard debating tactic is to, "always imply, but when challenged, deny". Our "debate" over racial differences proved that. You disagreed with my premise that races were different, but would not argue any position that all races were equal. Now, that's cute. It means that all you have to do is deny everything I say, while submitting nothing to support your own implied position. Well, you can try that on me once, AJ. But I won't be caught twice.

Now, you seem to be implying that all races are equal in intelligence. If that is not your position, then state plainly what it is, in the same way that I am prepared to state what my position is. There can be no meaningful debate unless both debaters make their positions clear. Both can then attack the other's position, and defend attacks on their own. If you would like to submit a 350 word article supporting your position with some evidence (scientific, or just a good argument), then I will take you seriously. But I am not going to make the mistake of presuming again that you have any intention of debating honestly, or in good faith

Yeah right, LEGO. Good luck in finding an example of that.

<<… your standard debating tactic is to, "always imply, but when challenged, deny".>>

In fact, I’ve challenged you to provide an example of me ‘implying then denying’ before, even giving you instructions on how you could best do that:

“… you can expose any alleged implications by outlining the context of the quote, or by mentioning my quote of yours that I was responding to at the time.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275388)

Needless to say, you dropped the accusation pretty damn quickly.

<<Our "debate" over racial differences proved that.>>

Well I’ve just “linked” to it “above”, so “perhaps” you could “find” an “example” of me ‘implying then denying’ now? Here’s another “discussion” of ours on race to “further” help you “out”:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259&page=0

<<You disagreed with my premise that races were different …>>

Not at all. Here’s me acknowledging differences:

“… Jamaicans, on average, tend to be better runners than, say, Asians.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283755)

“I acknowledged certain differences [between races] before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283755) as well as in the last thread.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283790)

“How could I point to differences between races while simultaneously implying that they're an illusion? … the genetic difference [between races] is tiny in comparison to the cultural differences that we observe.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283859)

<<… but would not argue any position that all races were equal.>>

Funny that. I did try, but you refused to clarify what you meant by “equal”, despite my many requests:

“Depending on what you mean by "equal", of course. Equal value? Equal ability? Equal appearance? Some of the above? All of the above? … Do please define what you mean by "equal" first.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283948)

Then, when I gave you an answer anyway, you stomped your feet and left because it wasn’t the answer you needed. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284124)

<<Now, you seem to be implying that all races are equal in intelligence.>>

LOL. How do you get that from what I’ve said? I’ve just finished explaining to mhaze some reasons why they’re not. You’re delusional.

Speaking of ripping new A-holes, don’t look down, LEGO. You now have two.

AJ,

"How does someone who believes that IQ scores are ridiculous come to the conclusion (incorrectly) that they’re less “iffy” when applied to racial groups than they are when applied to the different sides of the political spectrum?"

The study in your linked paper relied on small sample sizes and only a few tests to determine IQ. The studies used to determine the race 'findings' have large sample sizes over a long term with IQ determined by a full battery of tests. Hence one is more 'iffy' than t'other.

"If IQ scores really were as useless as you imply, then we wouldn’t see consistently lower averages in samples consisting of individuals with lower socioeconomic status and education levels."

The fact that an inappropriate measuring tool comes up with similar results doesn't prove that its right. If you have a tape that measures 1 metre incorrectly, the fact that all metre long timber cut using that tape is the same length doesn't make the tape correct.

Intelligence cannot be determined by a bank of tests no matter how hard or honestly the testers try to make them non-subjective and/or culturally neutral.

mhaze,

Given that the Right side of politics has most of the religious, the study really shouldn’t come as a surprise to you. That atheists have, on average, have higher education levels has been well established.

<<The study in your linked paper relied on small sample sizes and only a few tests to determine IQ.>>

Again, in the first study, yes. The second used thousands of subjects.

<<The studies used to determine the race 'findings' have large sample sizes over a long term with IQ determined by a full battery of tests. Hence one is more 'iffy' than t'other.>>

The number of times that IQ has been measured between races, or over what period it’s been measured, does not negate my point that IQ scores are more problematic with race due to the other factors (mentioned before) that affect IQ. This is not a problem when comparing the two sides of the political spectrum, so long as the sample is random.

<<If you have a tape that measures 1 metre incorrectly, the fact that all metre long timber cut using that tape is the same length doesn't make the tape correct.>>

So long as you keep using the same incorrect meter, that doesn’t matter. That can be adjusted for later. Poor analogy.

<<Intelligence cannot be determined by a bank of tests no matter how hard or honestly the testers try to make them non-subjective and/or culturally neutral.>>

To a large extent, yes. But it’s the best we’ve got at the moment, and it does an alright job when used appropriately. Race, however, is an inappropriate use (depending on the thesis) because there are too many other factors driving the results.

Anyway, I actually don’t care all that much about the study. My self-esteem doesn’t hinge on it and I don’t need a study to tell me what I can observe fairly reliably. I’ve known about the correlation for a long time, yet have never mentioned it on OLO until now because that’s not really me. I only mentioned it this time because LEGO’s unjustified hubris made it far too tantalising.

//But it’s the best we’ve got at the moment, and it does an alright job when used appropriately.//

I'm with mhaze on this one. All that IQ tests measure is how good you are at performing IQ tests. Whether or not this can be equated to the ambiguous beast we call 'intelligence' is somewhat contentious.

I think it's because the human mind is so versatile: I'm quite good with maths and science, but I'm rubbish at music. Am I more or less intelligent than an oboe virtuoso who struggles with trigonometry but at least has the basic ability to keep the beat? How do you even begin to answer that question? It's like comparing oboes with equations.

It is racist to say that one race is superior to another race AJ.

I am a racist, and I say that races are not equal. Races look different because they have evolved separately to give each race an advantage within very different environments.

The only thing I know about your position is that you disagree with me that races are not equal. Therefore, you must agree that all races are equal. But you deny that. So what your position is, I don't know. When you are prepared to submit your position, we can get started again.

Thank you.

Toni Lavis and mhaze,

Where are you guys when I’m trying to tell LEGO the same thing?

(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275700)

Initially I was just trying to communicate with LEGO on his wavelength in a jibe at his unjustified boasting of “his side” and how smart they all allegedly are. He’s currently waffling on about the intellectual supremacy of whites are on another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533&page=0) and not a peep from either of you there. Am I more pleasant to communicate with or something?

Thanks for knocking the wind out of a nice comeback to a spectacular display of arrogance too, by the way.

Although, Toni, I will point out that it’s a bit of an understatement to say that IQ tests only test one’s ability to pass an IQ test. IQ tests test cognition, which - as broad, ambiguous, and slippery as the concept of intelligence is - is what we tend to think of when we talk about intelligence.

---

LEGO,

Feeling a little humbler now, are we?

<<It is racist to say that one race is superior to another race AJ.>>

Yes.

Racist: Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racist)

<<I am a racist, and I say that races are not equal.>>

Correct.

<<Races look different because they have evolved separately to give each race an advantage within very different environments.>>

Close enough.

<<The only thing I know about your position is that you disagree with me that races are not equal.>>

You don’t need to know my position if yours is justified. You only want it because you believe it will help you to distract from the holes in yours.

But for the umpteenth time now: that depends on what you mean by “equal”. Are we ready to clarify that yet, or are you just going to continue playing games?

By the way, an answer to your question is in my last post to you. I’m sorry if it’s not presented in the overly-simplistic manner that your inadequately narrow debating technique requires.

//He’s currently waffling on about the intellectual supremacy of whites are on another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533&page=0) and not a peep from either of you there. Am I more pleasant to communicate with or something?//

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
- Mark Twain

Toni Lavis,

Point taken. I try to live by that advice, but there is something about LEGO’s hubris that makes discrediting his nonsense so irresistible.

Speaking of ‘hubris’, I’ve been wondering where all those who accused me of it recently have suddenly disappeared to. Surely they wouldn’t overlook LEGO’s hubris just because they’re politically aligned with him? Surely!

---

LEGO,

The reason you get yourself so tangled up, and then accuse me of being evasive (over something I have no obligation to do in the first place), is because you will only accept one answer. I tell you time and time again that I don’t believe that all races are equal, in the sense that they all have different physical attributes and ancestry, but that that, however:

1. doesn’t mean that some are superior to others, and that any perceived superiority or inferiority would be highly subjective, and;
2. it doesn’t mean that they should not be treated as being of equal worth and with equal respect, indeed I think they should be.

However, you don’t like this answer, and so you accuse me of not answering your silly question because what you need me to say is a uselessly-broad and non-specific,

“I believe that all races are equal.”

That way you get to point out ultimately-insignificant differences between races such as physical appearance, and then parade around as if you were right all along about everything else, justified in your harmfully overt bigotry, and brag - to your audience in which you are so narcissistically focused on - that you have ‘defeated’ another stupid lefty.

Oh, how you floor those silly Bleeding Hearts with your ‘formidable’ logic and reasoning!

You need the wriggle room that vagueness provides you because your inadequately-narrow debating tactics and reasoning aren’t sophisticated enough to counter anything beyond the most basic and naive stance from the caricature that is your perception of the typical lefty. Hence your refusal to clarify what you mean by ‘equality’ too.

You mistake, as formidable reasoning and logic, what is in fact nothing more than ignorance and oversimplification.

Whatever is happening with those Section 18C allegations against QUT and some students?

This seems to be latest:

<Cindy Prior: Doctor casts doubts on QUT employee’s 18C racism claim

Comprehensive medical reports question the severity and reasons for a stress disorder affecting an indigenous university staffer who is seeking $250,000 damages from students in a section 18C ­racial hatred case...>
[excerpt from a detailed article]

www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/doctor-casts-doubts-on-qut-employees-18c-racism-claim/news-story/acef2c0721cee62b98c564f837bdbeac

and,

<Human Rights Commission broke rules over race complaint

A Freedom of Information disclosure to students accused of ­racism shows the Human Rights Commission did not follow its own guidelines before the complaint of Cindy Prior advanced to the Federal Circuit Court.

The commission’s handbook has prescriptive procedures for complaints of racial hatred under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which is cited by Ms Prior, an indigenous former Queensland University of Technology staffer, in her $250,000 legal case against students for their Facebook posts.

The handbook cautions staff to “be careful to ensure the neutrality of your approach” when dealing with people who are the subject of such complaints, adding “no assumptions should be made about the validity of the complaint or views expressed as to its substance”.>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/human-right-commission-broke-rules-over-race-complaint/news-story/4205e68f9f1619dbcdf77b18d3dd71f2

The OLO article is timely.

@AJ Philips "You mistake, as formidable reasoning and logic, (for) ignorance and oversimplification."

I see why you'd say that :)

@Toni Lavis IQ tests: Scientists & academics are better than people give them credit for. IQ testing are not like a spelling bee or maths quiz.

Since the 70s 80s there is separate testing for "Intelligence" in Numeric, Verbal, Spatial, Linear, Mechanical, Visual, Conceptual, and more. There is nothing "contentious" about these matters.

Cognitive Sciences has only helped them to make improvements and try new things like every "scientific study" is done.

@LEGO "you disagree with me that races are not equal."

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equal

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/equivalent

USDoI
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

What does it mean to be created equal?

When the Declaration of Independence proclaims all men to be created equal, it means that all human beings, regardless of religion, sex, or skin color, possess the same natural rights.

The Founders were well aware that different people are unequal in physical and mental capacities.

UDHR - Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, [...]

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights
-

The problem with the "racial discrimination act" isn't section 18C (which is essentially a good measure to prevent hurting others), but its application over people's private life, as opposed to the public sphere. I'm surprised that the good Senator doesn't wish to repeal the lot, or at least modify it extensively, rather than just 18C.

The act's main section (9), states: "It is unlawful for a person to do ...X... which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing ...Y... in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

This nasty bit implicitly declares the above fields as exclusively belonging to "public life", which (other than "political") is untrue!
Further, the act discusses in detail issues that should in fact belong in the domain of people's private matters.

So long as this act (not just 18C) limits itself to what is truly public, I have no problem with it.

Now let's look specifically at the current "18C":
______________________________________________________________________
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
______________________________________________________________________

(continued...)

(...continued)

And this is how I would change it:
______________________________________________________________________
PROTECTION FROM VERBAL ABUSE ACT 2016 - SECT 18C
Offensive behaviour

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public domain; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public domain.
______________________________________________________________________

It is legitimate and reasonable to create a public sphere/domain where people can feel safe, not only physically but also from verbal abuse. This should be a general courtesy, rather than be limited to issues of race.

On the other hand, no law should limit what people may do on their own property so long as it does not spill over to public domain.

I hope that the author is reading this and will consider my proposed changes which go along with his own libertarian tradition of protecting people's autonomy within their private domain.

If the left whingers can justify the use of 18c to abuse the process, then they can justify keeping the ill defined "offend" in the clause.