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.