And you have no evidence of that at all, LEGO.

<<Since you persist in debating dishonestly in order to derail the debate …>>

Otherwise, you’d give an example. You had to know I’d challenge you to give an example by now, yet you still don’t because you can’t. Such a pity.

<<So I have switched tactics and now put my premises to the audience who can judge for themselves who is trying to debate, and who is just trying to stifle debate.>>

Really now? And just how exactly has anything I’ve done stifled debate?

*Crickets chirping*

<<I have said all along that human behaviour is a result of nature and nurture.>>

No, three years ago you suggested that it was pure ‘nature’ (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0). You've since had to concede that ‘nurture’ plays a role.

<<And I have given five examples that clearly display that genetics is a crucial component in animal and human behaviour.>>

Invalid examples using gender, yes. But examples nonetheless.

<<1. That sub species of animals exist that are genetically much more violent than other sub species within the species.>>

Races aren’t subspecies. Rodney has already explained to you that race is not a valid scientific concept, just as I had explained this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0.

<<2. That 95% of incarcerated criminals are males.>>

92% actually. But who’s counting?

<<3. That the AIC agrees that genetics and crime are linked.>>

Correct.

<<4. That IQ testing has revealed that incarcerated criminals generally have low intelligence …>>

Correct.

<<… and intelligence is heritable. >>

Correct.

<<5. That even babies have personalities.>>

Yeah, not sure what that’s got to do with anything though.

<<If you wish submit an argument supporting your implication that genetics plays little or no part in human behaviour, go right ahead.>>

I haven’t said that. I have said, however, that one cannot know for sure the role they play on a macro level:

“… so you can’t know to what degree genetics plays a role (if any at all) on a macro level.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972)

Continued...

...Continued

But I was being generous. We can be quite certain that they genetics mean nothing on a macro scale, so far as the scientifically invalid concept of “race” is concerned.

<<But you won't, because you know my position makes perfect sense and you can't think of anything credible to refute it.>>

Really? We had an entire discussion based on this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533&page=0

<<Your demand for me to explain how environmental factors are more important than genetics …>>

I have never asked that. There goes that Thought Disorder Rodney mentioned earlier. Or is it just plain dishonesty? We’ll leave that for your readers to decide, I guess. I'm not as generous as Rodney, though. I think you're just a dishonest schmuck out to narcissistically impress an overly-conservative OLO readership filled with stupid and uneducated old farts that are disgruntled because their outdated worldviews are no longer valid.

<<If low intelligence is a product of poverty, and not inherited genetics …>>

I haven’t claimed that it was. I’ve only asked how you’ve controlled for environmental factors.

Try again, LEGO. Looks like we’re gonna be here for a long time, eh?

Hi AJ,

I'm a little hurt by your characterisations of " .... an overly-conservative OLO readership filled with stupid and uneducated old farts that are disgruntled because their outdated worldviews are no longer valid."

I'm not all that old.

Hi Rodney,

You suggest that " .... My focus is not on the “tyranny of guilt” (for past injustices) but on how to re-instore the self-esteem, dignity and well-being of our present-day Aboriginal compatriots."

But this is the point I'm trying to make: that Aboriginal people themselves have to be front and centre in re-building self-esteem, etc., while others can only provide secondary support. Self-determination surely means that people themselves determine and negotiate their own futures, mainly (if not exclusively) through their own efforts ?

Of course, very many are doing just that: the equivalent of around 20 % of a young age-group now graduate from universities each year, through their own efforts: it's possible. Many others are gaining skills, and altogether the majority are searching for, or gaining, employment. Bill Leak would be happy to point that out, while quite properly criticising those who make no effort, who blow all their kids' money, and mothers' money, and aunties' money - and yes, they ARE out there, total dip-sticks.

I apologise for my poorly-worded comment about massacres a couple of days ago: "Hmmmm, what other atrocity can whites be blamed for ? Massacres ? No unequivocal evidence in SA, except the 'Maria' massacre in 1840."

I should have had the courage to put responsibility for that massacre where it belonged: in 1840, the 'Maria' was wrecked on the SA coast near the Coorong; all 28 passengers and crew survived but were massacred by the local Aboriginal group, supposedly the Milmenroora/Milmendjura. Two men were hanged later for this, and Governor Gawler was recalled for over-stepping his authority and treating British subjects as if they were outlaws.

Still,

[TBC]

[continued]

Still, the question remains: what atrocities can whites be blamed for, for which there is some evidence ? Massacres out beyond the official remit, especially in NSW and Queensland ? Of tens of thousands ? i.e. at perhaps thousands of massacre sites ? Of which there would still be evidence ? Is anybody looking for it ?

Horrible thought: if no massacres, no driving off land, no herding onto missions, no 'stolen generations', but ration systems, free medical treatment, free schooling (at a time when it wasn't free for white kids), issue of boats and fishing gear and guns - then what ?

On that point about free schooling: in 1870, before the Education Act, a Review found that more than half of all kids in South Australia couldn't read and write: farm kids, after all, didn't have to go to school and poor kids couldn't afford to. BUT all Aboriginal kids on Missions could read and write. In Victoria in 1877, one Mission, Ramahyuck, had the highest pass rates of any school in the colony [see www.firstsources.info on Victoria page: Appendix I].

Is it possible that - to use a hackneyed term - the 'clash of civilizations', of mind-sets, world-views, cosmologies, notions of how the world works - was (and still is in remote settlements) so profound and any resolutions so far-reaching and traumatic, so liable to complete misunderstanding, that we've barely scratched the surface of what the issues are and what participants need to do about them ?

Just saying :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear AJ

You claimed that I have no evidence of your dishonesty. Then you accused me of saying that only nature (genetics) was responsible for human behaviour. You posted a hot button link to "prove" your claim. Since I knew your claim was complete and utter crap, I clicked on the hot button and scrolled down. And gee whiz AJ, what did I find? Me saying that both nature and nurture were responsible for human behaviour. What did you do, AJ? Did you think that you could just say any lie and nobody would bother to check?

I have submitted five examples of genetics controlling both animal and human behaviour. All of these concepts I have explained to you before, in depth. But you are not going to let the facts get in the way of your politically correct, neo-Marxist, anti white racist ideology. Now, I know that reasoning with you is like talking to a brick wall, but I am writing this for the audience and hoping that their minds are much more permeable to reasoned thought.

1. Human races and ethnicities quite obviously do equate to sub species of animals. And if sub species of animals self evidently differ in personality, then the only reasonable explanation is their genetic difference.

2. That males are much more prone to violent and criminal behaviour than females. This is a very strong argument that genetics and behaviour are linked. I was disappointed that you did not try your pathetic explanation of the difference in gender behaviour, by claiming that it was hormonally induced behaviour and therefore not genetic. But I suppose you realised that you have made a complete fool of yourself on that one, and you don't want to go there again. Neither will you admit that since you now have no credible non genetic explanation for gender behaviour differences, then this is strong proof that my premise is correct. Better to lay low and hope that everybody forgets how stupid you were.

continued

continued

3. That the AIC cites "recent twin studies show persuasive evidence that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to anti social behaviour." Gee, AJ. Why don't you challenge the AIC and tell them they must be wrong about the genetic part, unless they can quantify exactly how much genetics causes crime "on a macro level."

4. Thank you for agreeing that incarcerated criminals have low intelligence, and that intelligence is heritable. That must have had you squirming trying to figure out a way to deny that.

5. If babies have personalities, then this is once again strong evidence that genetics and personality are linked.

Now we add 1+2+3+4+5 together and we get what? Human and animal behaviour is a product of nurture and nature. I have always said that. You have agreed with that. Nature provides the underlying personality and nurture does the rest.

Now, no matter where they reside, certain dysfunctional ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour. The racist, politically correct, neo Marxist explanation for that fact is that it is all the white guys fault. Anything from colonialism, native dispossession, racism, and discrimination. But my particular racist explanation is different. Different races have generally different levels of intelligence. Low intelligence has a causal link with criminal behaviour. The very ethnicities with the lowest IQ scores are unsurprisingly, very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour.

This is exacerbated by culture. Those ethnicities with the lowest measured IQ's, who are disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour, usually make lousy parents, eat crap, turn their "postcodes" into dysfunctional ghettoes, have cultural or even religious values which praise personnel violence, criminality, misogyny, illegal drug consumption, and resentment of responsible authority. They are discriminated against because so many of them are violent and untrustworthy. So, intelligent and productive people shun them.

But their numbers keep expanding through immigration and high birth rates, so they have become a growing political force. Crooked politicians tell them they are the victims of the responsible and the productive, stoke their resentments, and buy their votes with welfare payments