Brendan two points.
1). There this wonderful invention called youtube you should check it out, try typing in "Rapid fire lever-action shotgun" I think you find a number of examples of people firing off 8 shots in as many seconds.

2). You do understand why the guns laws were brought in don't you? If you're nut case and want to fire at a crowd of tourist then a rapid action shot gun could be your weapon of choice.

PS I handed in my pump action shot gun during the buy back and haven't missed it.

Aren't lever-action rifles still legal? Why not a lever action shotgun?

The really stupid thing about this, is while the the country is going down the gurgler - increasing debt, loss of freedom of speech, crap power supplies on SA, the morons are arguing about a bloody gun!

Oh just in case people don't want to go look try these links.
here is a Australian based company making the magazine extention so you don't have to be a skilled machine to get a hold of one.

http://www.iceng.com.au/2016/04/27/adler-a110-magazine-extensions/

here is a you tube video on how to fit an extension

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFM3_OynOg

and and couple of reviews

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZETC39Kf7AE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdeP-0bCOr8

and a rapid fire fire but slow reloading demo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAHEi3a08wE

but a rapid reloader can fix that.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2015/02/04/video-speed-load-shotgun-like-jerry-miculek/

ttbn,
You may not be aware of this, but a rifle fires one projectile at a time and it goes in a very straight line until it eventually loses speed and drops or it hits something. That's the way it's designed. It's actually quite difficult to hit the thing you want to hit if you're using a rifle. If you're using a lever action rifle and you have to deal with the recoil and then recock it becomes harder still. Most people aren't like Rooster Cogburn (you know, John Wayne's character in True Grit, what a guy he was). Not much like David Leyonhjelm though, he was a lot less one-eyed...

A shotgun, on the other hand, is designed to fire many projectiles at once, in such a manner that they spread out and hit anything within the cone formed by the path of the projectiles, starting at the muzzle. It's really quite easy to hit the thing you want to hit with a shotgun, even if you're not very skilled. A lever action shotgun doesn't present many more difficulties, although firing half a dozen 12 gauge shots, even birdshot, in quick succession is likely to lead to a sore shoulder.

Can you see that giving someone who might want to hurt other people the ability to shoot lots of shots with a shotgun might be a bad idea?

ttbn, I apologise for that last post, it was unnecessarily snarky. The point remains though.

As I can fire 6 shots from my Brno double barrel shotgun (Category A) faster than 5 shots can be fired from an Adler and 8 shots faster than can be fired from the Adler with the 8 shot capacity, then I really wonder what all the fuss is about.

Lever action shotguns have been legal since the 1996 gun laws were introduced and the Adler is no faster than those that were available at that time.
I suspect that they would have been banned in 1996 if they were a problem, or were the framers of the laws ignorant of the existence of lever action shotguns?
Surely not, for the laws were framed by experts, which is probably why a matchlock musket (shotgun). circa 1650, loaded via the muzzle and being able to be fired at the staggering rate of a shot every FOUR minutes is in Category B and double barrel shotguns, that can fire four well aimed shots in under ONE minute are in Cat. A.

Makes sense!!

Agree with most of this Brendan, and congratulate on your commonsense approach! The hysterical anti gun lobby must by now have the feeble-minded convinced that guns have an ability to act independently, minus a human finger on a trigger?

And are out there stalking potential targets on mindless whim and caprice? And a real worry if you ever see a gun driving a car, for a potential drive by shooting or just lurking in some dark alleyway as a prelude to robbing some passerby or late night storekeeper?

And as nonsensical as the vision of any firearm taking independent action! I long held, it is not guns, regardless of their action, that commit crimes but rather the finger on the trigger!

And given one only needs a single shot to commit suicide, or maybe an automatic action would allow someone to kill themselves several times over? Moreover, the drop in suicide rates has everything to do with locked gun cabinets, rather than removing semiautomatics from law abiding hands, which by the way, reportedly have the same gun related crime rate attributed to them as serving police?

Moreover, I believe some laws need to be completely reversed, given victims less rights today, than those who attack them!

In the news this morning, the story of a woman being attacked by an iron bar wielding neighbor, staggering to her feet and fighting for her very life, or virtue or both?

Only to be arrested by over-vigorous police persons, who after handcuffing her and bundling her, with alleged unnecessary force into a ambulance, seemed to have interviewed the iron bar wielding perpetrator and accepted his side of the story? That he was just defending himself against a madwoman?

For mine he should have been interviewed in a hospital bed, with a 25 cal round just removed from his belly? And given I would allow legally licensed law abiding citizens to carry a small calibre (two shot) handgun for personal protection? We need a proscribed persons register, which if had been standard practice prior to Port Arthur, could have prevented the massacre?
Alan B.

Craig,

Apology accepted. I started shooting at the age of 15,and it was my main pastime until about 20 years ago. I shot the odd rabbit, fox and ducks, but my main interest was target shooting. I shot full bore rifle with consistent success up to 1,000 yards; not so good with pistols, which I used on 25, 50 and rapid fire silhouette. Shotgun for ducks, quail, and foxes, flat out after them in a ute with spotlight. So, I do know a little about guns. Shotguns are not as easy to use as you think. The last fox I brought down had go be finished off with a spade as it copped one only pellet in its back leg. Shot guns are pretty ineffective over 50 yards, and the shot spread is only about 1 metre. I could hit a human head size target at around 700 metres with my 7.62mm target rifle, and the target would not be aware of my presence. The shotgun might be OK for very close killing by police or military, but a rifle is the deadlier weapon. As for recoil, a 12 gauge has a pretty good boot too, but recoil with any firearm is no problem for experienced shooters who know how to hold the weapon correctly. In my view, this Adler shotgun is no more 'dangerous' than a double barrel in the handers of anyone who knows what he is doing. Dangerous game, like elephants, which tend to stand up to shooters, are general felled with a bolt action rifle of .375 to .40 calibre with a kick like a mule. The now ancient Lee Enfield .303 could have its bolt worked very quickly by those trained to use it to fire 10 shots in no time flat. The idea that a lever or pump action is dangerous by definition is bumph.

I bought my first rifle when I was 16 years of age. I did not need a licence, because firearm licences did not exist. Rifles and shotguns could be hired from gun stores. Every major department store had a "sporting" department that sold firearms and ammunition.

School cadets could be seen walking down the street, or sitting on buses and trains, with Lee Enfield .303 military rifles on their shoulders, and nobody batted an eyelid. I was a school cadet, and we used to walk into class and stack our .303's against the classroom wall. Our school armoury had around 100 rifles and four BREN light machine guns.

Many suburban men's hairdressers sold firearms and ammunition as a sideline. These could be inspected by any pedestrian, as they were usually placed in the storefront window, even at night. Ammunition was available from many corner stores and rural petrol stations.

If guns cause crime, then crime involving firearms must have been right out of control when I was a kid.

But in those days, there were no school stabbings, no school "invasions", no school shootings, and no school massacres. Kids did not kill kids. Taxi's did not have plexiglass shields. Public buses were not escorted by security guards in cars. There were no security guards in schools to protect teachers from pupils like there are now in six Sydney schools.

Kids did not drop bricks on cars from highway overbridges. Ambulance personnel were held in great respect by everybody and they were not subject to assaults as they are today. Graffitti wasn't everywhere. Frail pensioners were not attacked in their homes and robbed of their pension money. Car jackings, home invasions, drive by killings, sieges, and kidnapping were practically non existent.

Any person with half a brain can figure out, that if your society is going off the rails, then the smart thing to do is to focus upon those aspects of your society which have changed. Not to always blame a factor which always present when crime rates were very low.

So where has it all gone wron Lego?

Lego, good comment there.
So very true.

For all who are paranoid about rapidity of fire, I regularly fire six aimed and effective shots in Rapid Fire matches within the prescribed times, the fastest of which is 5 seconds, and the 6 shots have to go within the 5 secs (holding the gun with one hand only) my regular times are 4.5 to 4.75 secs.
The pistol that I use is a replica of the 1873 Single action Colt; single action means that I have to pull the hammer back manually for each shot before pressing the trigger.
If I 'fan' the pistol then it's 6 shots in 3 secs. but that's using two hands and accuracy goes out the window.

There are plenty of young blokes that are faster than I am.

What has gone wrong, Diver Dan?

1. The entertainment media today now produces products which routinely encourages criminal behaviour. There are even books being sold glorifying graffiti and teaching young people how to do it. "Rap" music on any "youth" radio program routinely glorifies, drug abuse, misogyny, and the solving problems with weapons. Other "songs" glorify killing police officers and white people, and the joys of raping your mother. And these products are aimed at the youngest and the dumbest members of our society. Any fool who thinks that the media has no effect on human behaviour, should agree that advertisements for cigarettes and alcohol should be allowed in their kid's books and magazines, and on their kid's TV shows.

We can watch Charles Bronson shoot down 35 bad guys in one movie (Death Wish 4) and think it is very entertaining, and hail Charles Bronson as a hero. Then we wonder why a socially isolated and very lonely dumbass like Martin Bryant picks up a gun and shoots 35 people dead. What we see as entertainment, Bryant sees as a script for upward social mobility.

2. This is occurring at a time when one child in three is living in a single parent household. The entertainment media executives are just as aware of what they are doing to societies most vulnerable, as the cigarette executives where when they targeted children for cigarette addiction.

3. Race and crime are linked. We keep importing into our country the very races and ethnicities who are always dysfunctional because they have a much lower collective IQ than we do, and because they are genetically more prone to violent behaviour than we are. These races are a serious and never ending social problem wherever they go. But the official religion today is "everybody is equal", so we ignore the self evident.

4. We are importing into Australia people from very violent religions and cultures where the normal response to any perceived slight is violence. This is because in these cultures, the male sense of personal honour is still medieval

LEGO, points 1 and 2 are very good, then you went right off the rails mate.

Each new wave of ethnic migration has been associated with some raised criminality within that group and nearly always mainly confined to the group. This is true of the Southern Europeans after WW2, the Lebanese in the 70s, the Vietnamese in the 80s, the Irish and Chinese in the 19th Century. It's always associated with a lack of opportunity for people and it always diminishes over time as opportunity becomes more evenly distributed.

No need to panic, just take a longer view.

Re the reference above by Lego to Martin Bryant, who according to official lies was the Port Arthur gunman, the message that he could not have been with details behind it is fortunately now gaining wider recognition thanks to the Internet. Information that the mainly anti gun mainstream media will not publish can now readily be widely circulated and also located with Google searches. Interesting to note comments on Facebook pages of major TV channels after they ran programmes again vilifying Bryant for the 20th anniversary of the Port Arthur Massacre. Lots of people obviously now do not believe them.

Port Arthur was just one of a number of type shootings supposedly done on sole initiative of a deranged "lone nut gunman" that was actually a "false flag". ie Atrocity arranged for the purpose of falsely blaming someone and/or pursuing an agenda. In these cases by anti gun psychopaths to gain support for tough gun laws and covered up with the help of people in high places, including the government, police, judiciary and media.

Fortunately now false flags, including some that occurred long ago are increasingly being exposed. Including with cynics now looking closely at details of each new incident for false flag indications such as participants doing things too early including releasing information on alleged crimes much quicker than would occur under normal police procedures and re shootings, accompanied with a barrage of anti gun propaganda.

Unfortunately so far major shooters organisations and politicians and others supporting them have been too cowardly to properly expose and discredit the "official" Port Arthur story, the main basis of the anti gun agenda in Australia. As with many whistle blowing jobs, those attempting it would first have to anticipate receiving a lot of abuse

Hi IS MISE...

You first sentence herein confuses me somewhat ? You can load and dispatch, in your Brno side by side 12g, faster then a Lever Action 12g in either 5 or 8 shot respectively, have I got that right? Surely a misunderstanding IS MISE? Would you kindly clarify, precisely what it is you're saying, if you will?

To Craig.

What evidence do you have that Danish, Swedish, Belgian, Latvian, Estonian, German, French, British, or even East Europeans caused crime waves in Australia?

Your assertion that some ethnic criminals prefer to target people from their own ethnicities is partly true, but that hardly justifies it. Home invasions (a crime not even seen in Australia prior to Vietnamese immigration) by Vietnamese criminals exclusively targeted Vietnamese shop owners, but these same Vietnamese criminals also imported the heroin that they sold to Australian kids. They even created $30 dollar "starter kits" (heroin, spoon, lighter,and syringe) which they sold in high schools to Aussie students. Even Aussie crime bosses like Lennie McPherson and Abe Saffron would not stoop that low.

According to the writings of ex-Detective Sergeant Tim Priest, what shocked the NSW Police was not just the scale of Lebanese and Arab criminality, it was that these ethnicities preferred to target white Australians and Asians rather than their own ethnicity. All of the 70 Australian girls gang raped by Muslim race hate rape packs at the time of the 2000 Olympics were "infidels." Rape by Muslim men towards European women is endemic in every western society and it is a disgrace. How many more women do you think should be sacrificed on your altar of multiculturalism before you come to the defence of your own people?

Lastly, you claim that ethnic criminal behaviour decreases with time. Could you post up some proof of this amazing premise? Last I heard, black and Hispanic crime in the USA was as bad as ever, with the Muslims now doing their best to catch up. Please provide proof that Sudanese crime in Melbourne is decreasing.

But I have to hand it to you for at least admitting that ethnic crime is very bad. Criminologist AJ Phillips, who posts on OLO, refuses to even concede that. He claimed it was all a figment of the public's imagination caused by sensationalism in the media, and he even wrote a scholarly paper to that effect. If you have some written "proof" of your assertions, AJ probably wrote them.

LEGO,

When did I refuse to concede that ethnic crime is "very bad"?

Where have I said that ethnic crime is a "figment of the public's imagination caused by sensationalism in the media"?

This'll be interesting.

I have never written a scholarly paper suggesting the above either. I don't know where you're getting that from.

Brendan, I am a shooter and I cannot agree with your logic that Leyonhelm should not make a fuss. As you have outlined a seven shot lever action shotgun does not pose any special risk to the community and as a matter of principle and good evidence-based policy, that fact is all that should matter.

Despite the Federal Government's rhetoric that this is a "temporary import ban", by maintaining the ban until the states agree on a reclassification they are effectively responsible for the likely permanent recatagorisation to Category D of the gun, which is an effective ban for most shooters. Had the Federal Government not placed the export ban on the gun in the first place, this never would have happened.

The shooting community should not be allowing calls for bans based on misinformation and ignorance, to go unchallenged. If we roll over with the Adler, do you seriously think that the likes of Gun Control Australia will stop there? No, they will move onto the next class of firearm and find an opportunity to put governments under pressure by creating an illusionary threat, but this time with precedent behind them.

Leyonhelm is quite right to be robustly debating this issue in the public arena and I think it has improved the media and the public's understanding of firearms issues. I have seen a couple of news stories recently which soberly assess the technical capabilities of the firearm, in the case of Andrew Bolt the conclusions left him asking what all the fuss is about with this gun?

What Bolt did take issue with when he interviewed Leyonhelm, was his tactic of trying to blackmail the Government on unrelated legislation. I agree with Bolt on that, it is a Senator's job to review legislation on it's merits and Leyonhelm's approach of trying to corner the Government invites retaliation.

Being a bit bolshie aside I think that Leyonhelm has done the right thing in not simply rolling over on this and that all shooters should continue to support his efforts.

To AJ

You have disputed my premise that ethnic crime was very bad several times now. You once stated that the public's perception that ethnic crime was out of control was based entirely the "overwhelming evidence" of sensationalist media reportage. Here is your quote. What you wrote was so PC crazy I wrote it down.

"Having written an essay on the media's influence on the public's perception of crime, I can vouch for the overwhelming evidence in support of the proposition. So if you have any evidence to the contrary, then I'd be fascinated to see it. In my research, I could only find a couple of articles asking that we still exercise caution, and not jump to conclusions too quickly, despite the overwhelming evidence."

You also claimed that you wrote an article on racism. Which I thought was really funny, given that I have gotten writer's cramp trying to goad you into writing anything that could even be considered to be a reasoned argument. I begged you to post it up, but as usual, you slunk away. If you posted up an argument, you would have to defend it, and that would cramp your "just deny everything and attack everything" style of "debating."

Here it is, for your edification.

"By the way, I can reference all of my claims if you'd like. I recently wrote an essay on racism too, so I could easily refer you to about 20 peer-reviewed journal articles - complete with studies and further references - pointing you to where I get my information from, if you'd like to check the accuracy of any of my claims. Perhaps you could check the methodologies and conclusions of the studies conducted and point me to the shortcomings in them that are being conveniently overlooked by academics?"

I liked that. You won't present a reasoned argument yourself on OLO, even though you actually wrote an article for publication. Instead, you tell me to read a bunch of "studies" written by another bunch of PC eggheads like you.

LEGO,

In the quote you provided, the “proposition” that I said I could vouch for was that the perception that “ethnic criminal behaviour [was getting] out of control” was media-driven. Although, I wouldn’t say that it was “all” media-driven, as your (probably inaccurate) paraphrasing of what the AIC had allegedly said claimed. Obviously, a part of that perception is the fact that crime rates in many ethnic communities are higher. What the media tends to do is exaggerate that.

http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol10is2/dowler.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.498.9883&rep=rep1&type=pdf

So can you tell me what exactly the AIC claimed now? I’ve asked you before, but all I heard was crickets chirping. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310247)

The essay I referred to in your second quote was an undergraduate assessment piece. I have never published a paper before. I’m not a professional academic.

<<You won't present a reasoned argument yourself on OLO, even though you actually wrote an article for publication.>>

I present reasoned arguments every time I counter one of your naive and ignorant assumptions. You’re just annoyed because I don’t boldly and foolishly assert the way you do. You want me to say that multiculturalism is a perfectly harmonious and beautiful thing, and that every human being is genetically identical. Which is what you need me to do so that you can distract from the weaknesses in your arguments by pointing out the absurdities in the above.

Speaking of evasiveness, though, you still have some unanswered challenges on the last thread. I guess you were looking for a fresh start, eh? Fine by me, if you want to derail another thread. We will almost certainly end up at the same unaddressed challenges again either way.

o sung wu,

My Brno double is a hammerless, ejector gun and being also double triggered, both barrels can be fired at once.

Starting with unloaded guns I'll fire 5 or 8 before the Adler can be loaded.
Starting with loaded weapons I'll still fire faster than an Adler or any other lever action shotgun with the possible exception of the .410 Winchester.
I'll go even further and say that starting from an unloaded position I'll fire 5 or 8 faster from a Greener Martini single shot gun than can be fired from an Adler.

Currently the best that I've done from a .22 Martini single shot rifle is 15 aimed and on target shots in a minute and loading .22s is fiddly compared to 12 gauge.

IS MISE...

Thank you for your clarification on your claim. It would be both improper and utterly unprofessionally of me to publicly dispute your claim ? That said, I think I'll need to realign my judgement on matters that hitherto, I've let go through to the keeper?

O sung wu,

Think about it, mate.
Starting with both guns loaded the first shot from the Adler goes in, say, 1/2 a second, the first and second shots from the Brno go in the same time, the Adler recycles and fires in say 1 second, it takes me 2 secs to reload and fire 2 shots, the Adler has now fired 3 shots, but I've fired 4 and 2 secs later I've fired a total of 6 shots but in the same time the Adler has only fired 5 and I can go on and fire a further 5 or more shots before the Adler can begin firing again.

Double barrel, hammerless, ejector shot guns have put up higher sustained rates of fire than semi-automatic guns and there are young blokes around who can fire at amazing rates from double hammer guns.
Just watch Western Action on U Tube.

IS MISE...

I attended the Smith & Wesson facility in Springfield MA. While there I watched a number of precision (read 'trick' shooters) do all sorts of amazing things with their humble J frames up to and including the N Frames - You know what I took away from S&W? Precisely nothing - zip - squat ? It is for this reason our command went for Herr Glock's 'plastic 9mm's'. However VICPOL were obviously impressed, they purchased Smiths self-loaders instead (price trade-in had no bearing on their decision, like hell it didn't).

Dear AJ.

If you wish to read the AIC's whitewash of ethnic crime, look it up yourself. You probably have a copy sitting on your desk right now, but I have noted previously that you seem to enjoy making me run around the internet finding things that you already know is true. Your intent is not to promote debate but to frustrate me in order to stifle debate.

I see that three of your Sudanese victims of white oppression and "Strain theory" just stuck up a jewellery store in Toorak yesterday. I think it is great that Toorak is now getting the benefits of multiculturalism.

Here is your explanation for black crime.

"Poverty, lack of resources, religion and lack of education, cultural displacement, and low I.Q. all tend to exacerbate each other. There are multiple factors on both a micro and macro level"

Well, it sure wasn't caused by poverty, AJ. These men came from craphole of a country where the average income was about $2 dollars a week. The instant they got off the aeroplane at Tullamarine their incomes and lifestyles got a massive boost. They went from mud huts to government supplied houses and modern flats. Their incomes from Australian taxpayers made them rich beyond the dreams of avarice in their own countries. Free medical care. Subsidised bus and rail fares. Subsidised everything

"Cultural displacement"? No, "blame the white guy" won't work there either.

"Lack of education"? What's the bet these characters when they went to school were so violent that even the teachers were frightened of them? What's the bet that they disrupted the classes even when they bothered to go to school? I have a female friend who is a teacher and she got a job teaching African blacks. She once criticised me for my racism but now she confided to her sister that I was right.

"Low IQ's." You finally got it right. But then you claimed that IQ tests were inaccurate. Memo to AJ. You can't claim that IQ testing is inaccurate and then use a low IQ argument for one of your excuses.

That’s the thing, LEGO, I have and I don’t see where they claim that “all” perception of ethnic crime is media-driven or a “figment of the public’s imagination”.

<<If you wish to read the AIC's whitewash of ethnic crime, look it up yourself.>>

Looks like I won’t be getting a link to this imaginary source of yours. Nice sidestep, though.

<<… I have noted previously that you seem to enjoy making me run around the internet finding things ...>>

Only when it’s clear that you don’t have a source.

<<I see that three of your Sudanese victims of white oppression and "Strain theory" just stuck up a jewellery store in Toorak yesterday.>>

Strain theory, eh? And why did you apply that as the most relevant theory? How did you rule out rational choice theory, routine activities theory, social disorganization theory, labelling theory, social learning theory, or a combination thereof?

Which strain theory too, by the way? The original strain theory (Merton), or general strain theory (Agnew)?

<<Well, it sure wasn't caused by poverty, AJ. These men came from craphole of a country where the average income was about $2 dollars a week.>>

How do you know they weren't born here?

<<"Cultural displacement"? No, "blame the white guy" won't work there either.>>

Cultural displacement isn’t about blame. But I’ve already explained something similar to you with regards to marginalisation at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972. It just doesn’t sink in with you, does it?

<<"Lack of education"? What's the bet these characters when they went to school were so violent that even the teachers were frightened of them?>>

Yes, that’s a good one, and your lack of argument against it attests to that.

<<What's the bet that they disrupted the classes even when they bothered to go to school? I have a female friend who is a teacher and she got a job teaching African blacks.>>

So are you saying, now, that social learning theory would be more useful than strain theory? I would agree. I’d also say that social disorganisation theory would be useful in this situation too.

Continued…

…Continued

<<"Low IQ's." You finally got it right.>>

Finally? No, we had a good one there with lack of education as well.

<<But then you claimed that IQ tests were inaccurate.>>

Yes, that’s a point. You see? You’re learning! But I also pointed out the chicken-and-egg problem too? Remember?

(You see? I told you we’d get back to your unaddressed challenges eventually! Although I didn't expect that we would get there so quickly.)

<<You can't claim that IQ testing is inaccurate and then use a low IQ argument for one of your excuses.>>

Low intelligence is still a thing, regardless of how accurate the testing for it is. Speaking of low IQ is also fine so long as you take account of the limitations of testing intelligence.

There's a difference between 'reason' and 'excuse' too. But you chose to use the word 'excuse' instead because your lack of facts requires you to keep it emotive. "Blame the white guy" is a classic example.

I think we're on a roll here, LEGO. I enjoyed that. You see how much more productive discussions can be when you quote people instead of addressing things they haven't said and then trying to pass repetition, needlessly-lengthy paragraphs, and a lack of quotes in your posts off as reasoned argument?

Keep it up ol' chap.

Some additional thoughts, LEGO.

<<… but I have noted previously that you seem to enjoy making me run around the internet finding things that you already know is true. Your intent is not to promote debate but to frustrate me in order to stifle debate.>>

Firstly, can you find one instance of me already knowing that these things were true? In every instance I can recall, it turned out that you were either wrong or you sidestepped my request somehow. Secondly, I’m sure not letting you get away with lies and distortion feels very much like I’m stifling debate. You would much prefer that I let you get away with your misrepresentations.

<<I see that three of your Sudanese victims of white oppression ...>>

More emotive language from you in lieu of facts. Since when have I ever cited ‘oppression’ as a factor?

“Oppression”. I like that. It conjures up images of hundreds of Sudanese all shackled together. Emotive stuff! It certainly makes anything I’ve said seem absurd. But that’s the whole idea, isn’t it LEGO? It’s all about style over substance with you.

Here’s a challenge: try posting for the rest of the discussion without the use of emotive language. I bet you can’t do it. I’ll count each instance of emotive language from you starting n-n-n-n-n-now…

But let’s look at this robbery for a moment. Per usual, you (emotively) made it sound like some blacks stepped off a plane and (being dumb because they’re black) started robbing jewellery stores because they were too stupid to know how to get a job or realise that crime has punitive consequences.

What you don’t realise, however, is that first-generation migrants historically have lower rates of offending than whites (probably because they’re so grateful to be here). It’s their children who offend at a higher rate than whites (for reasons we can go into later, if you’d like), so the chances that these offenders were born here and did not come from a “craphole” are high.

That being said, I guess we can’t rule out poverty/low-socioeconomic-status as a factor after all.

Dear AJ.

You can't have it both ways. Either ethnic crime is very bad, it is not media sensationalism, and it is not a figment of the public's imagination, or it is the opposite. Which way is the wind blowing for you at the moment? Whatever which way it is blowing, make up your mind and stop changing your position.

The reason I mentioned "Strain theory" is because you can always find some wacky excuse for the fact that some ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in serious crime, except the most obvious and self evident ones. You agree that crime and genetics are linked. Here is you saying just that.

"Yes, there does appear to be a genetic factor to criminality."

And.

"I don’t know why you would be surprised that criminologists recognise a genetic factor to criminal behaviour."

You admit that criminals generally have a low IQ.

"Poverty, lack of resources, religion and lack of education, cultural displacement, and low I.Q. all tend to exacerbate each other."

But when I put the facts together and point out certain ethnicities have a low measured IQ, that these same ethnicities compose the lowest and most dysfunctional socio economic group within every single white western society they inhabit, and that they are always very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour, you claim it can't have much to do with genetics.

That is absurd. It is like a Creationist saying that he accepts that Earth is 4.567 billion years old, that the dinosaurs were millions of years old, but that the Earth was created in six days.

You claim that races are not equal in physical appearance and physical abilities (but you would deny that if you could), but that they are equal in personality potential and intelligence potential. Please give 350 words explaining how you know that people of different races are born totally equally in terms of intelligence. And how do you know that at birth their personalities are all equal blank pieces of paper, which are subsequently moulded by nurture into different personalities?

That's known as the false dichotomy, LEGO.

<<Either ethnic crime is very bad, it is not media sensationalism, and it is not a figment of the public's imagination, or it is the opposite. Which way is the wind blowing for you at the moment?>>

What if it was bad, but it was worse in the minds of the public because of media sensationalism?

That's six fallacies over two discussions now.

<<Whatever which way it is blowing, make up your mind and stop changing your position>>

I have not changed my position. You have merely presented a false dichotomy.

<<The reason I mentioned "Strain theory" is because you can always find some wacky excuse for the fact that some ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in serious crime …>>

There is decades of evidence supporting the validity of strain theory as an explanation. What is your evidence that it is a “wacky excuse”?

“Excuse”. Ding! That's one to the tally.

<<You agree that crime and genetics are linked.>>

Correct.

<<You admit that criminals generally have a low IQ.>>

“Admit”. As if it were done reluctantly.

Ding! That’s two.

<<But when I put the facts together and point out certain ethnicities have a low measured IQ, that these same ethnicities compose the lowest and most dysfunctional socio economic group within every single white western society they inhabit, and that they are always very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour, you claim it can't have much to do with genetics.>>

More that it is extremely unlikely given the evidence we currently have. Intelligence is a polygenetic trait controlled by hundreds or even thousands of genes, and probably just as many combinations of genes. To assert that this number of genes and/or combinations of genes can be shared among large populations is ludicrous, given what we currently know. But we've already been through all this (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0).

Continued…

…Continued

Then there's this again:

“Firstly, you haven’t controlled for environmental factors, so you can’t know to what degree genetics plays a role (if any at all) on a macro level. Secondly, your scientifically debunked 19th century racial theories don’t address the problem of which came first: low intelligence or disadvantage.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972)

<<You claim that races are not equal in physical appearance and physical abilities …>>

Generally speaking, yes.

<<... but that they are equal in personality potential and intelligence potential.>>

There is not enough evidence to suggest otherwise, but what evidence we do have suggests this, yes. Further to what I said earlier, when you are talking about a species that has one of the smallest known gene pools; when an individual can be more genetically similar to some people of other races than some within their own race; and when these traits are polygenetic, there is no reason to believe that there are statistically significant differences here.

<<Please give 350 words explaining how you know that people of different races are born totally equally in terms of intelligence. And how do you know that at birth their personalities are all equal blank pieces of paper, which are subsequently moulded by nurture into different personalities?>>

Firstly, this is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof) because you haven’t yet demonstrated your claim that genetics plays a significant role on a macro scale. All you’ve done is confuse correlation with causation, while failing to control for environmental factors.

This is also the false dichotomy again because you’re presenting the two extremes as the only possible positions. My position has only ever been that you don’t have the evidence to be making the claims that you make, and that what evidence we do have suggests that you’re wrong. This is why you get pissy at me: because your black and white thinking (a common problem in conservative thought) only allows you to see two possible positions, and when I don’t take the opposite extreme of your position, you accuse me of dirty tactics.

Instances of emotive language: 2

The fact remains that the Adler is not particularly fast and certainly no faster than the lever action shotguns that have been available since 1897 and which, obviously, were available in 1996 when the current laws were enacted.

From this we can deduce that the lawmakers did not consider them to be a problem or did not know of their existence.
We can also deduce that by this time the various anti-Adler parties have egg on their faces and that there is a lot of political posturing of the "We must be seen to be doing something" variety.

There has not been a peep about the various lever and pump action rifles that can fire shot shells, so it is either disinterest or an abysmal lack of knowledge, take your pick.

AJ wrote

"More that it is extremely unlikely given the evidence we currently have. Intelligence is a polygenetic trait controlled by hundreds or even thousands of genes, and probably just as many combinations of genes. To assert that this number of genes and/or combinations of genes can be shared among large populations is ludicrous, given what we currently know. But we've already been through all this"

Complete waffle. Either IQ testing is accurate, or it is not. "The evidence we have" is that 100 years of IQ testing in the USA has found a definite link with IQ and criminality, which you accept. But how do you know if criminals have a low IQ unless you also agree that the cognitive metricians can accurately measure it? And if they can accurately measure IQ in criminals, how is it that they are, after 100 years of IQ testing, unable to accurately measure it in races? You yourself sneered at me at one time claiming that black IQ's were rising faster than white IQ's

....."so how does that affect your simplistic racial theories?"

If black IQ's are rising faster than white IQ's, then you must have accepted that there already exists a gap between black IQ's and white IQ's. You are obviously arguing from a position which you already know is false.

When I asked you if low IQ was a major factor in criminal behaviour, your answer was....

"It’s bound to play some role for some individuals in some instances of their criminal behaviour. No factors exist in isolation. But there is not enough evidence to say that it is a “major” factor."

But then you wrote

"However, I would be willing to say that low intelligence is indirectly a major risk factor."

You just incredible, AJ. IQ measurement is accurate when you want it to be, and inaccurate when you don't want it to be. Black IQ's are catching up to white IQ's, but racial intelligences are equal. . Finally, low IQ is a not major factor in crime, but it is a major factor in crime.

LEGO,

In my experience, “Complete waffle” is what people say when they don't have a good response.

<<Complete waffle. Either IQ testing is accurate, or it is not.>>

More conservative black and white thinking (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml).

Or is it accurate enough but contains a lot of flaws? Anyway, this doesn't address what I said. Observe...

<<"The evidence we have" is that 100 years of IQ testing in the USA has found a definite link with IQ and criminality, which you accept.>>

No, I was referring to our knowledge of genetics.

<<But how do you know if criminals have a low IQ unless you also agree that the cognitive metricians can accurately measure it?>>

Because they can measure it accurately enough. This still doesn't address what I was saying. The relevance of the weaknesses in IQ testing refers to the fact that there are different forms of intelligence that IQ testing cannot test for.

<<And if they can accurately measure IQ in criminals, how is it that they are, after 100 years of IQ testing, unable to accurately measure it in races?>>

They can. They just don't mean much until one controls for environmental factors.

<<You yourself sneered at me at one time claiming that black IQ's were rising faster than white IQ's>>

Erm, no. That was me who pointed that out:

“At the rate they’re going, they’ll have ‘evolved’ to become smarter than white Americans in about 30 years.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18530#329999)

Wow! Just wow. You really must suffer badly from Thought Disorder.

<<If black IQ's are rising faster than white IQ's, then you must have accepted that there already exists a gap between black IQ's and white IQ's.>>

Never denied it.

<<IQ measurement is accurate when you want it to be, and inaccurate when you don't want it to be.>>

Apparently not.

LEGO, we can't have a productive discussion if you can't even keep track of who's said what.

Dear AJ

Oh, so now IQ testing is not accurate, just "accurate enough"? So, after 100 years of testing, the cognitive metricians have proven that generally speaking, criminals have a low IQ. You accept their findings because it is "accurate enough". According to your "reasoning", it is "accurate enough" because the cognitive metricians must have factored in "environmental factors". And they must have factored in "different types of intelligence", which they can apparently test for, in their testing .

But when the same cognitive metricians spend 100 years proving that certain dysfunctional races generally have a low IQ, it not "accurate enough." Your reasoning is, that they must have forgotten to include "environmental factors". And they can't measure "different types of intelligences" in their tests.

That is crap, and you know it is crap.

The principle remains the same. If you accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" in regards to criminals, you can hardly claim that IQ testing in not "accurate enough" in regards to races.

AJ drops a clanger.

“At the rate they’re going, they’ll have ‘evolved’ to become smarter than white Americans in about 30 years.”

You are clearly implying that the measured difference in IQ's between whites and blacks is a fact which you already appreciated, and that the blacks are closing the gap. Therefore, you knew all along that whites and blacks have different measured levels of intelligence, and for months now, you have dishonestly argued from a position that you already knew was false.

AJ drops another clanger.

Never denied it.

Oh, my God! You have been denying for 500 pages that generally speaking, races have unequal intelligences. You have used every excuse you can dream up to justify that position. "IQ testing is not "accurate enough."" "Socioeconomic factors". "Environmental factors" "Nutrition" "Blah, blah, blah."

Are you now finally prepared to admit that, generally speaking, races have different levels of intelligence? I can't wait for you to supposedly "agree", then do your favourite trick of qualifying your statement until it is completely meaningless.

Yoooooooouuuuu hooooooooooo AJ, were aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrre Yooooooouuuuu?

Please AJ, please, reply to me. I am really enjoying this. I promise I will be nice. (On second thought, bugger that).

C'mon, boy. I am just getting warmed up.

You know, I have a funny feeling that the bloke who runs this site whistled you up to deal with me. I remember that he decided to respond to me personally, then suddenly he stopped, and you turned up. Did he ring you up and say "AJ. you are a university trained Criminologist, you deal with this racist for me." Show everybody how wrong he is." All you are displaying is how muddle headed anti racists are.

Now, just on IQ alone, your quoteable contradicting positions are....

You admit that criminals have a low IQ. First you have stated that this is a major factor, and later you claimed it is not a major factor.

You accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" when it is applied to criminals, but claim that IQ testing is inaccurate when applied to races.

You admit that intelligence can be derived from genetics, and that genetically derived intelligence is heritable, but then claim that this could not apply to entire races.

You imply that intelligence is primarily derived from psychological and physiological factors, and you completely ignore the genetics side which you have already conceded. You stated that "people don't just develop smart genes because they are doing smart stuff." This ignores natural selection, where the most intelligent (or the most violent) are the most successful, and they in turn attract the most females.

You agree that personality and intelligence are different from race to race, (probably because I have beaten it into your overly thick head and you can no longer deny it) but qualifies it by saying that it is primarily due to sociological, nutritional, and cultural differences. Once again, you pointedly ignore genetics and provides no evidence to support your premise.

Finally, you say you have "never denied" that races have different intelligences. That must be the doozy of the year.

Adler! Adler! Where are you?

Actually the Adler has a long and proud history by all accounts. Their first model was branded 'The Empire' and caused quite a sensation, followed about 12 months later with the Adler mod 7, and again it enjoyed much acclaim. Later, they decided to merge with another company thus renaming itself the 'Triumph - Werke', shortly thereafter they became known; The TA Triumph - Adler Ag Company.

I guess the Company founders did something right, as they've apparently got many folk here in Oz talking about them - nothing like a bit of free advertising eh ?

O sung wu,

Spot on there; Gun Control Australia and the Greens did the importers a big service, without their negative input sales would have dragged along.
One of Tony Abbott's services to industry.

LEGO,

Sorry I haven’t been sitting at my computer clicking refresh every five minutes, but the thought of conversing with someone who can’t even keep track of who’s said what is not very appealing.

<<Oh, so now IQ testing is not accurate, just "accurate enough"?>>

“Now”, as if I’d said anything different in the past.

<<You accept [cognitive metricians’] findings because [they’re] "accurate enough".>>

With what we generally consider intelligence, yes.

<<According to your "reasoning", it is "accurate enough" because the cognitive metricians must have factored in "environmental factors".>>

No, they haven’t.

<<And they must have factored in "different types of intelligence", which they can apparently test for, in their testing>>

No, they can’t. Not much anyway. Where do you get this from?

<<But when the same cognitive metricians spend 100 years proving that certain dysfunctional races generally have a low IQ, it not "accurate enough.">>

You’re going to have to start coming up with some quotes.

<<Your reasoning is, that they must have forgotten to include "environmental factors".>>

How so?

<<If you accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" in regards to criminals, you can hardly claim that IQ testing in not "accurate enough" in regards to races.>>

Agreed.

<<You are clearly implying that the measured difference in IQ's between whites and blacks is a fact which you already appreciated, and that the blacks are closing the gap.>>

Correct.

<<Therefore, you knew all along that whites and blacks have different measured levels of intelligence …>>

Correct.

<<… and for months now, you have dishonestly argued from a position that you already knew was false.>>

How so? Examples please.

<<You have been denying for 500 pages that generally speaking, races have unequal intelligences.>>

Really? Where?

<<You have used every excuse you can dream up to justify that position …>>

No, those factors help explain the differences in IQ test results.

<<Are you now finally prepared to admit that, generally speaking, races have different levels of intelligence?>>

“Finally”, as if I’d ever denied it.

Your manic tone suggests that you’re panicking now, LEGO. You’re becoming paranoid too. Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

AJ wrote

Where do you get this from?

I got it from you. You claimed that IQ testing of races was not "accurate enough" to measure racial IQ's, because the cognitive metricians had not factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligences". So, if you accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" to measure criminal intelligence, then the cognitive metricians must have factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligence." If you have any other explanation as to why you accept that IQ measurement is "accurate enough with criminals IQ's, but not with racial IQ's, then lets hear it.

AJ, you are now rather incredibly claiming that you have always been aware that races have unequal intelligence. Gee that's funny. I have been trying to get that through your overly thick head for around 500 pages, and I have used "The Bell Curve" as one of my sources. "The Bell Curve" collated 100 years of IQ testing in the USA, and it found that African blacks have lower bell curves of intelligence than whites and Asians. This you have never stopped opposing. Your argument has always been, that the IQ testing was not "accurate enough" to make that claim, and therefore "The Bell Curve" was wrong.

AJ wrote

"More that it is extremely unlikely given the evidence we currently have. Intelligence is a polygenetic trait controlled by hundreds or even thousands of genes, and probably just as many combinations of genes. To assert that this number of genes and/or combinations of genes can be shared among large populations is ludicrous, given what we currently know. But we've already been through all this"

We sure have. Your above statement clearly shows that you think that genes for intelligence can not be shared among entire races of people. But if you are now saying that different races have different levels of intelligence, then "the Bell Curve" was right. And you have just contradicted your own above statement.

You have now conceded that races have unequal intelligences. Thank you.

Still lean on the quotes I see, LEGO.

<<You claimed that IQ testing of races was not "accurate enough" to measure racial IQ's, because the cognitive metricians had not factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligences".>>

Where did I say this? I will say, however, that IQ tests don't show a complete picture and are therefore problematic.

<<So, if you accept that IQ testing is "accurate enough" to measure criminal intelligence, then the cognitive metricians must have factored in "environmental conditions" and "different types of intelligence.">>

Not necessarily. What individuals or groups score on tests says nothing about why they scored that? My “accurate enough” referred to cognitive abilities. It said nothing about why such scores are obtained.

You’re really struggling with this, aren’t you?

<<If you have any other explanation as to why you accept that IQ measurement is "accurate enough with criminals IQ's, but not with racial IQ's, then lets hear it.>>

Again, never said that.

<<AJ, you are now rather incredibly claiming that you have always been aware that races have unequal intelligence.>>

I have always acknowledged that they achieve different averages with tests, yes.

<<Gee that's funny. I have been trying to get that through your overly thick head for around 500 pages ...>>

Quotes please.

<<"The Bell Curve" collated 100 years of IQ testing in the USA, and it found that African blacks have lower bell curves of intelligence than whites and Asians.>>

I know. I’ve since read it.

<<Your above statement clearly shows that you think that genes for intelligence [cannot] be shared among entire races of people.>>

Or that it’s very unlikely, given what we currently know, yes.

<<But if you are now saying that different races have different levels of intelligence, then "the Bell Curve" was right.>>

There’s a difference between scores and genetic potential.

<<You have now conceded that races have unequal intelligences. Thank you.>>

Oh, don’t thank me, because it says nothing about how strongly genes play a role on a macro level (if any at all), and that's the issue.

Poor old Adler, he's bein' snowed under.

Actually the Adler Typewriter has been around for years and years and has given thousands of typists, many hours of splendid and proud service during it's long period of operation. In fact I can recall Adler's, Olympia's and Remington's together with other well known brands of manual typewriters, being placed strategically on the various 'charge counters' at any local police station you care to name, in the State of NSW.

And some big fat copper pounding out, on the keyboard, a P.190 form or some other equally banal official document, in the inimitable two finger style, and with each finger stroke, landing upon a key like a small explosion, accompanied by a flash of lightening, bound never to strike the same key twice! Ah they were the days. A gallon of 'white-out', a decent old Adler, you were made I reckon.

Meanwhile, in the latest edition of "Sporting Shooter" magazine (Nov) there is an add for the 'Pardus' lever action shotgun shewing 5 models, barrels ranging from 18 inch to 28 inch and on another page an add for the 'Adler' shewing 4 models; it pays to advertize!!

Here's another bit of general information to warm your hearts, the Adler and the Pardus are chambered for 3 inch shells, 5x3 in the mag means 15 inch storage capacity so 7x2 inch shells should fit.

3 shot semi-automatic shotguns are severely restricted but 3 barrel guns that can fire their contents faster than a 3 shot semi are category A.

Weep ye antis!!

As we have Universal National Gun laws why are some guns banned in NSW, the ACT and WA?

I don't know why IS MISE? But I'm sure you'll tell us?

AJ wrote

"Still lean on the quotes I see, LEGO."

Naah, got heaps of quotes.

AJ wrote

"Where did I say this? I will say, however, that IQ tests don't show a complete picture and are therefore problematic."

You obviously don't regard IQ tests as "problematic" if you use them yourself to support your own premises. It is a clear double standard, AJ. Either IQ tests are "accurate enough", or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

AJ wrote

"You’re really struggling with this, aren’t you?"

I have a clear and concise, evidence based reasoned argument to support my premises. These premises are credible, easy to understand, cross connect with each other, and back each other up. Like every ideologue who's ideology has been found wanting, your only "argument" is to just oppose everything I say. I have quotes from you where you have made completely contradictory statements, and the above example displays how you need double standards to even compete. You come up with every abstract, esoteric, and amorphous excuse to support your own unprovable explanations as to why you think I am wrong, then you demand that I prove that you are wrong. And then you wonder why you, a trained (or indoctrinated) criminologist, are losing an argument about crime to an electrician.

AJ wrote

"I know. I’ve since read it"

I doubt it. If you had read it, you would now be admitting I was right. You probably skimmed the 800 or so pages looking for something you could misrepresent. Although, since you are now claiming that races may have unequal intelligences, maybe you did read it and conclude that you could not get away with claiming that other than physical appearances and physical attributes, races are all the same in personality and intelligences.

You knew you could not win that one, so you have fallen back to a more defensible position. You now seem to be saying that whatever differences races have in IQ and personality, is almost entirely caused by environmental factors and nurture.

Just not when you make untrue claims then, eh LEGO?

<<Naah, got heaps of quotes.>>

When will you provide the quotes I requested earlier?

<<You obviously don't regard IQ tests as "problematic" if you use them yourself to support your own premises. It is a clear double standard, AJ. Either IQ tests are "accurate enough", or they are not. You can't have it both ways.>>

Once again, IQ tests are “accurate enough” to measure cognitive abilities, but they say nothing for why those scores are achieved. I’m not having anything both ways.

<<I have a clear and concise, evidence based reasoned argument to support my premises.>>

Then why can’t you address these two problems:

“Firstly, you haven’t controlled for environmental factors, so you can’t know to what degree genetics plays a role (if any at all) on a macro level. Secondly, your scientifically debunked 19th century racial theories don’t address the problem of which came first: low intelligence or disadvantage.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330972)

<<These premises are credible, easy to understand, cross connect with each other, and back each other up.>>

No, all they do is “confuse correlation with causation, while failing to control for environmental factors.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331585)

<<Like every ideologue who's ideology has been found wanting, your only "argument" is to just oppose everything I say.>>

No, see above.

<<I have quotes from you where you have made completely contradictory statements …>>

Well then, don’t keep them to yourself. Let’s see them.

<<… and the above example displays how you need double standards to even compete.>>

The quote you provided simply explained that IQ tests don’t give a complete picture. There was no double standard there.

<<You come up with every abstract, esoteric, and amorphous excuse to support your own unprovable explanations as to why you think I am wrong, …>>

“Excuse”. Ding!

No, they’re quite simple. I’m sorry they baffle you. Is that why you don’t address them?

Continued...

…Continued

<<… then you demand that I prove that you are wrong.>>

“Demand”. Ding!

No, I request that you provide evidence for your claims. It’s known as the burden of proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) Confusing correlation with causation, while failing to control for environmental factors, is not evidence.

<<And then you wonder why you, a trained (or indoctrinated) criminologist, are losing an argument about crime to an electrician.>>

"Indoctrinated". Ding!

No, I haven’t wondered that. The way our discussions go on these sorts of topics makes complete sense given our credentials. I address everything you say line by line, while you duck and weave.

<<Although, since you are now claiming that races may have unequal intelligences, …>>

“Now”, as if I’d said anything different before. Still can’t find that quote?

You’re still overlooking the difference between IQ test scores and genetic potential too. That was my main point in my last post and you haven’t even addressed it. You just duck and weave as usual.

<<You now seem to be saying that whatever differences races have in IQ and personality, is almost entirely caused by environmental factors and nurture.>>

“Now”, as if I’d said something different before. But, yes, that’s what the evidence suggests.

Instances of emotive language: 5

o sung wu,

My guess is that it's because we don't have Uniform National Gun laws even though the pollies and the media tell us that we do.

For the same reason that it's a crime in WA to have an empty, fired, inert cartridge case but in the other States it's OK to have a bit of scrap brass.

AJ wrote

"Once again, IQ tests are “accurate enough” to measure cognitive abilities, but they say nothing for why those scores are achieved. I’m not having anything both ways."

You are having it both ways. If you concede that low IQ is a factor in crime, then you are tacitly admitting that IQ tests are accurate. You can't then claim that they are inaccurate when 100 years of IQ testing clearly displays an IQ gap between races.

AJ wrote

"Two factors help shape our mentality - nature and nurture - and the different combinations of the two have a multiplying effect on who we are as individuals."

This has been my position since day 1. Nature (genetics) provides the underlying personality, and nurture builds on that. But just to be sure we were on the same page, I asked you if by "nature" you meant "genetics", and you said

AJ wrote

"Yes, and physiology. That sort of thing."

When asked by me..."Do you agree with your Criminologist peers that genetics and crime are linked?"

Your answer, "With that in mind, I’ll say, yes."

So far, we seem to agree. Genetics, behaviour and crime are linked. But when I point out that the incarceration rates of males and females confirms what now we both agree to, and I say it is "a very strong argument that genetics and behaviour are linked." You say this

AJ wrote

No, it’s not, and you haven’t yet addressed my rebuttal.

That is a clear contradiction. Either genetics, behaviour and crime are linked, or they are not. You can't argue they are linked when it suits you, and then argue the opposite when the wind blows the other way.

continued

continued

Your "rebuttals" concerning the obvious genetic differences in male and female criminal behaviour are laughable. And why you are even doing it, when you have already agreed that genetics and behaviour, which must include criminal behaviour, are linked, is a question that only you can answer.

AJ quotes

"When comparing males and females, it's more useful to talk about sex than genetics."

"Biological sex is a chromosomal difference determined at conception, not a heritable trait."

"No, I’ve always pointed out to you that people don’t inherit sex, it’s determined by chromosomes and hormones at conception."

"I have never mentioned hormones."

"Correct, sex is chromosomal."

"Sex is not the same as race. Gender is a far more reliable predictor of behavioural traits."

"Thanks for pointing out another way that another way biological sex is different. Males and females respond differently to the same environments, while different races don't. Your analogy is invalid.

I do not have a clue what any of this gobbledegook means, but then I don't think you do either. Confronted by a clear example of how genetics, behaviour, and crime are linked, you blather on with complete rubbish, probably because you think it is better to say something totally unintelligible than admit that genetics, behaviour and crime are linked, which you have already agreed to.

That you already know that genetics, behaviour and crime are linked comes from this incredible statement.

AJ wrote

“A genetic disposition for aggressive behaviour, for example, can help one to become a good soldier, a good rugby league player or a good wife beater.

To summarise, your position is, that races are equal and unequal. That genetics and crime are linked, and they are not linked. That people can be genetically violent, but that "crime genes" do not exist. That IQ is "accurate enough" when it suits you, and not "accurate enough" when it does not suit you. And that low IQ is a major factor in crime, and it is not a major factor in crime.

Do you actually call yourself a bloody scientist?

Still not having it two ways, LEGO.

<<If you concede that low IQ is a factor in crime, then you are tacitly admitting that IQ tests are accurate.>>

Accurate enough, particularly with larger sample sizes.

<<You can't then claim that they are inaccurate when 100 years of IQ testing clearly displays an IQ gap between races.>>

I've said they're “problematic”. I don’t think I’ve said they’re “inaccurate”.

<<Nature (genetics) provides the underlying personality, and nurture builds on that.>>

Further to that, life experiences can change our gene expression (Epigenetics). So there’s another problem for your racial theories.

<<So far, we seem to agree. Genetics, behaviour and crime are linked.>>

Correct.

<<But when I point out that the incarceration rates of males and females confirms what now we both agree to, and I say it is "a very strong argument that genetics and behaviour are linked." You say this>>

The, “No, it’s not”, was in reference to differing incarceration rates between the sexes being a good analogy for differing incarceration rates between races. It wasn't a denial that genetics plays a role.

There was no contradiction.

<<Your "rebuttals" concerning the obvious genetic differences in male and female criminal behaviour are laughable.>>

Yes, “laughable”. Even though you couldn’t address my reasoning as to why biological sexes (when comparing crime rates) are not analogous to different races:

“Males and females respond differently to the same environments, while different races don't.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#331140)

<<… your position is, that races are equal and unequal.>>

No. You've just committed the Equivocation fallacy. That's all. That's eight fallacies now.

<<That genetics and crime are linked, and they are not linked.>>

I’ve never said that they’re not.

<<That people can be genetically violent, but that "crime genes" do not exist.>>

They can have a genetic tendency. I've never said the latter, though.

<<That IQ is "accurate enough" when it suits you, and not "accurate enough" when it does not suit you.>>

Quotes please.

<<And that low IQ is a major factor in crime, and it is not a major factor in crime.>>

No, never said the latter.

Keep trying.

Actually, LEGO, I did once take issue with your use of the word “major” in that last one there, since there’s no way of knowing for sure to what extent genes play a role and the fact that it would be different for each individual. But I’ve let that go and am happy to say that it is “major” because your racial theories still suffer those two fatal flaws that I keep repeating, and you keep dodging.

Since I’m here wasting another post, I may as well point out that while you’re producing a lot of quotes, you’re still missing the vital ones that demonstrate any contradiction. Simply quote-bombing isn’t going to lend your argument any credibility. You did provide one there that appeared to be a contradiction, but alas, you had misunderstood what I was referring to (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#331313)

It just goes to show how much you read the opinions of others according to what you want them to be saying, rather than what they are actually saying. So much so that your memories of our discussions have altered and now you can’t find a quote where I contradict myself. It must feel like you’re going mad!

I’m sure if you go back far enough, you probably will find something slightly contradictory. That’s because I’m always learning and refining my ideas. Unfortunately, where you’re concerned, your posts twelve years ago read almost word for word identical to your posts now because you don’t learn.

Anyway, I’m off for now. Graham Young and I need to discuss our next course of action. It’s becoming exceedingly apparent that you're not leaving anytime soon, but I figure keeping you tied down to one thread is better still than nothing. Keep the toxic views confined to one place. We’ll see what he thinks anyway. I'd say a raise is in order, though.

Maybe now Adler will get a go !!

To AJ. Just a quick post because I have to catch the 4.50 to Wynyard.

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that Graham Young whistled you up to ream me out. He must be very disappointed in you. The fact that my posts have not changed over the years is because my argument is very well thought out, because it is the truth. I do not need to change my positions to avoid the truth like you do.

Your "debating" style is totally dishonest and it is indicative of a person determined to stifle debate and hide the truth, rather than a person who is confident that they are right and is eager to test their beliefs against an opponent. I warned you that I have dealt with people like you in the past, and that I knew how to do it.

If my opponent consistently and dishonestly refuses to state a position he is willing to defend, then I have only two choices. I can simply refuse to debate them, or I just let the fool keep talking. Through the odd question, or just because he wishes to defend a minor point that either he or I have raised, that person will eventually make unconnected statements which put together reveal his overall position.

The trick is to cut and paste these statements into categories. For you, I have categories for "Genetics and crime", "IQ and crime" "Gender and crime", "Races are equal", "Races are unequal." I even started a new one lately when you denied that white people are always blamed for the antics of dysfunctional races called "Blame the white guy."

After I have filled in each category with a dozen quotes, I can begin to understand what my dishonest opponents carefully hidden position is. What amazed me about yours was, the number of times you have contradicted yourself. I think that you just reflexively oppose everything I say to the extent that you are unaware of your own contradictions and double standards. You won't submit an overall argument backing up your beliefs because you haven't got one.

Is Mise,

Sorry about all this. Even I feel sorry for the poor old Adler now and and I don’t even like guns. This is just a continuation from our last discussion on a thread that no longer shows by default because it is more than a month old. LEGO called me to this thread because narcissists require an audience to feel admired by (You’ll note the frequent fantasising about how everyone’s apparently cheering him on) and I guess it’s just not good enough when a discussion is hidden.

--

LEGO,

Of course I was joking about Graham paying me to get rid of you (I do that for free). I certainly hope you were joking too, otherwise you have a more extreme case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder than I originally thought.

<<The fact that my posts have not changed over the years is because my argument is very well thought out, because it is the truth.>>

Then why do you have to duck and weave my challenges?

<<I do not need to change my positions to avoid the truth like you do.>>

You haven’t demonstrated this yet.

<<Your "debating" style is totally dishonest and it is indicative of a person determined to stifle debate and hide the truth …>>

Examples please?

<<If my opponent consistently and dishonestly refuses to state a position he is willing to defend ...>>

Firstly, I state a position that I am willing to defend every time I counter one of your arguments. Every time I present a challenge to your uneducated views, I’m saying that they are a problem for you, and you prove me right with your evasiveness. Secondly, even if I didn't, there would be nothing dishonest about that.

<<The trick is to cut and paste these statements into categories.>>

Then you need to start doing this in such a way as to discredit what I say.

Continued…

...Continued

<<After I have filled in each category with a dozen quotes, I can begin to understand what my dishonest opponents carefully hidden position is.>>

Great! Let’s see them then. The last ones flopped.

<<What amazed me about yours was, the number of times you have contradicted yourself.>>

Oh? That was it? Well, you’re yet to demonstrate a single contradiction.

<<After I have filled in each category with a dozen quotes …>>

Yes, narcissists tend to obsess like that. Don't you have a family to look after or something? Then again, narcissists tend not to let people get close to them:

"I have no wish to meet any of the people I debate with on any debate site. That even goes for people who share my views. Subject closed." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4577#45454)

<<… you are unaware of your own contradictions and double standards.>>

That’s the way, LEGO. When you can’t find a contradiction, just dig your heels in and assert that they’re there.

<<You won't submit an overall argument backing up your beliefs because you haven't got one.>>

Oh, but I have. Many times (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18530#330100). It’s just not the one you need for your rehearsed shtick to work, and that really annoys you.

“You want me to say that multiculturalism is a perfectly harmonious and beautiful thing, and that every human being is genetically identical.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331483)

I think it's back to the drawing board for you.

Go for it, lads!!

All guns should be taken away from everybody except policeman and soldiers nobody else need a gun for any reason. People who have guns must be sick in the mind very much even to protect themselves as the policeman will protect you no need for a gun. In my country Albania guns mean death and more death and lost famlies and much sadness, only policeman need the guns and some soldiers in case of attack by bad Germans and things.

I am 81 years and many friends and neighboures of my family are dead because of all the guns. Men who like guns are sick in their minds the must be very sick in their mind to want and shoot guns.

That person AJ Philips is a strange person who is in love with herself very much I think or maybe shes just very young person is all I think. Or maybe a lady who loves herself very much I wonder. But big minded for sure and rude to lego maybe AJ Philips is frighted of Lego for some-thing. Guns must be gone from everybody from the houses and everywhere. Sick people who are very mad in the head if they love guns at all.

Hi there MISANTHROPE...

Reading through your post, you appear to believe that all members of the public should be denied F/A's, except police and the military? Actually I don't agree with your proposition that F/A's should be arbitrarily banned from the public, provided those wishing to engage in lawful target shooting or hunting are carefully vetted and then licensed to possess and use the appropriate F/A.

I understand you have very legitimate reason(s) to take such a resistant stance on F/A availability, given your (apparent) background in Albania. However here in Australia there are sufficient laws in place to ensure only fit and proper persons are provided with a F/A licence, to ensure the public as far as possible are protected from irresponsible, even criminal use of a F/A.

Your other comments where you say inter alia; anyone who enjoys using F/A's must be mentally ill (or similar words?). I again don't agree with you! There are tens of thousands of people who enjoy lawful shooting pursuits, including Olympic sport competition, Farmers destroying feral pests, target shooting etc. in fact many other disciplines the use of a F/A is necessary and quite safe.

Your remarks concerning A.J.PHILIPS and/or LEGO, I'm not entirely sure what it is you're saying ? Thanks for your contribution.

https://youtu.be/xhD28XpiUDE

This is the Adler versus an 1887 Lever action shotgun that has been around for over a hundred years and which our law makers saw fit to licence in Category A back in 1996.

The only difference was that the 100 years ago gun was better made.

AJ wrote

"Then why do you have to duck and weave my challenges?"

I have challenged you to submit a position on race and crime, and to support it with reasoned arguments. This you have refused to do. So I find it amusing to have you claim that I am avoiding your challenges. You once posted 17 Dorothy Dixer questions at me in one triple post, and when I pointed it out, you said that they were just "rhetorical" questions. But the real reason was because you want to load me up. You want me to do all the work and explain everything, even demanding that I explain why some of your more outrageous and flippant replies are wrong, while you sit back and poke holes in everything I say. Try that on a novice, not me.

My position is to present rational, logical and reasonable arguments supporting my position that race and crime are linked. I am not going to be side tracked with red herring questions by a dishonest opponent who will not submit a position he needs to defend.

AJ wrote

"Firstly, I state a position that I am willing to defend every time I counter one of your arguments. Every time I present a challenge to your uneducated views, I’m saying that they are a problem for you, and you prove me right with your evasiveness. Secondly, even if I didn't, there would be nothing dishonest about that."

You do not counter my arguments with reasoned and consistent logic. You simply write sneery one liners, or sneery two, three and four liners. Since your responses are simply to reflexively deny everything I say, it is hardly surprising that you keep contradicting yourself. It is impossible to "debate" against an opponent who can not, and will not, submit a consistent position. All I can do is to keep my cool, and keep displaying to our audience that I am prepared to present reasoned arguments while you are just a compulsive naysayer who's "logic" is all over the shop

misanthrope,

I don’t think you even know what LEGO and I are discussing. I think you’ve just popped your head in now and are still sore at me for criticising religion that one time. Either that, or you’re very confused if you think that people who enjoy shooting are sick in the head, but that racists and racism are A-Okay.

As for my rudeness, I am as polite to people as they are to me, and often politer. When LEGO demonstrates that he is permanently done with the offensive and baseless accusations and insinuations, I will tone my manner of speaking down. Until then, he will get as good as he gives.

By the way, I don’t know where you get the idea that I’m female or young. Given you don’t like me, that sounds both sexist and ageist. Not all Germans are evil either. The Nazi regime is gone. You can relax now.

--

LEGO,

When did you specifically do that?

<<I have challenged you to submit a position on race and crime, and to support it with reasoned arguments.>>

And why isn’t what I’ve said in this thread and the last good enough?

<<So I find it amusing to have you claim that I am avoiding your challenges.>>

Even if I had been evasive, you are the one who made the initial claim. I have presented challenges to those claims to demonstrate that there are problems with your racial theories. It’s called the burden of proof, LEGO, and you still have it.

<<You once posted 17 Dorothy Dixer questions at me in one triple post …>>

Well, I don’t think the 17 questions part happened. I think you made that number up, hence the absence of a link.

<<… and when I pointed it out, you said that they were just "rhetorical" questions.>>

As if I had a need to get defensive. I don’t think this happened at all.

<<But the real reason was because you want to load me up.>>

You load yourself up with all the claims you make. I’m just calling you to account.

Continued…

…Continued

<<You want me to do all the work and explain everything …>>

Again, it’s called the ‘burden of proof’. You just want to be able to fire off a heap of dubious claims and get away with it without question.

<<… even demanding that I explain why some of your more outrageous and flippant replies are wrong …>>

If you claim that my replies are wrong, then you need to back that up, yes.

“Demanding”. Ding!

<<… while you sit back and poke holes in everything I say.>>

Well, we can agree on that part at least.

<<My position is to present rational, logical and reasonable arguments supporting my position that race and crime are linked.>>

While dodging the problems with them.

<<I am not going to be side tracked with red herring questions …>>

The fact that you have not controlled for environmental factors or resolved the chicken-and-egg problem are not red herrings, they’re fatal flaws.

<<… by a dishonest opponent who will not submit a position he needs to defend.>>
“Oh, but I have. Many times (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18530#330100). It’s just not the one you need for your rehearsed shtick to work, and that really annoys you.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331763)

<<You do not counter my arguments with reasoned and consistent logic.>>

The unaccounted-for environmental factors and the unresolved chicken-and-egg problem are reasoned, consistent, and logical.

<<You simply write sneery one liners, or sneery two, three and four liners.>>

“You’ve used the “sneery one-liners” argument before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0) and it didn’t work then, so what makes you think it will work this time?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310318)

<<… it is hardly surprising that you keep contradicting yourself.>>

And you still haven’t found an example. This is just becoming absurd now.

<<It is impossible to "debate" against an opponent who [cannot], and will not, submit a consistent position.>>

Heh, trying debating someone who won’t address the problems with their claims! But at least you now seem acknowledge that I have submitted a position. You’re yet to point to any inconsistency, though.

Instances of emotive language: 6

Let's examine your replies on genetics, race, and crime, AJ.

Since you won't submit a cohesive argument, I have to unscramble it from whatever disjointed replies you have made. The closest I can get to figuring out what your position might be on this topic comes from this quote from you.

AJ wrote

"Two factors help shape our mentality - nature and nurture - and the different combinations of the two have a multiplying effect on who we are as individuals."


By "nature" you admitted that you were talking about genetics.

When I wrote to you that "Genetics and crime are linked, and the link is very strong."

Your reply. " Agreed, although how strong is still debated".

So, we agree that there is a "strong" connection. But when I suggest that if genetics and crime are linked, and some ethnicities with a measured low intelligence are very disproportionately represented in serious crime, and that this obviously points to the fact that race and crime are linked....

AJ wrote " it only APPEARS as though genetics plays a role."

So, it is not strong after all. Then you try to suggest that genes only determine physical appearance, they can't determine behaviour.

AJ wrote. "There is nothing to suggest that the genes that control physical appearance influence our personalities"

Nice red herring there. I have never even suggested that the genes which control human appearance also control human behaviour. But there are genes which control behaviour because you have already admitted it.

AJ wrote

“A genetic disposition for aggressive behaviour, for example, can help one to become a good soldier, a good rugby league player or a good wife beater."

Then you suggest that genetic behaviour can not apply to groups. But if a group of people share genes for physical appearances, then a reasonable person might ask, how is it that they can not share genes for behaviour?

Now comes every excuse including that humans are too "sophisticated." Suddenly, the genetic link is not "strong" and only "environmental" reasons can determine group behaviour. God knows what these "environmental" factors are.

Since you refuse to submit reasoned arguments, I am then forced to go back over innumerable pages of OLO trying to figure out what these "environmental" causes might be.

So we get these quotes.

AJ wrote

"it’s about the marginalisation of minorities and socioeconomic factors."

No reasoned argument from you on "marginalisation", which sounds like "blame the white guy". "Socioeconomic factors" sounds like "poverty", but poverty is only marginally linked to crime.

AJ wrote

"Lack of resources, religion and lack of education, cultural displacement, and low I.Q. all tend to exacerbate each other. There are multiple factors on both a micro and macro level"

Once again, you submit "reasons" why some ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour, but submit no argument as to their validity. It is just like me saying that crime is caused by "genetics," and that I do need not say anything else.

"Lack of resources." Christ knows what you mean by that, and even He is probably struggling. "Cultural displacement" sounds like "blame the white guy", but we will never know because you did not bother to explain what you meant. "Lack of education". That is an extremely debatable point, and once again, you do not elaborate. "Low IQ". You just won a set of steak knives. But you only accept that IQ is measurable when it suits you. When I point out that the same ethnicities who have a low measured IQ, are the same ones very disproportionately represented in crime, you can not see any possible connection. Out come another range of lame excuses.

AJ wrote

"Speaking of which, how have your dodgy theories accounted for factors such as poor nutrition, poor education, poor parenting, low socioeconomic status, postcode and the resulting high stress levels during the developmental years, for criminal behaviour and low IQ?"

No reasoned argument from you as to how any of these factors causes crime. Easily dismissed with genetics. Dumb people eat crap, do not value education, are poor parents, inhabit the lowest level of society, and they not only live in bad "postcodes", they create bad postcodes.

Yes, LEGO, let’s.

<<Let's examine your replies on genetics, race, and crime, AJ.>>

This should be interesting.

<<By "nature" you admitted that you were talking about genetics.>>

“Admitted”, as if it were done reluctantly. Ding!

Ultimately, yes.

<<When I wrote to you that "Genetics and crime are linked, and the link is very strong." Your reply. " Agreed, although how strong is still debated".>>

Correct.

<<So, we agree that there is a "strong" connection.>>

Correct.

<<But when I suggest that if genetics and crime are linked … AJ wrote " it only APPEARS as though genetics plays a role.">>

Yes, if you read the quote in context, you will see that that was a clumsy way of differentiating between the micro level (individual/direct decent) and the macro level (races/ethnicities) (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275167).

<<So, it is not strong after all.>>

You have compared something I’ve said in the last month, to something I said three years ago.

“I’m sure if you go back far enough, you probably will find something slightly contradictory. That’s because I’m always learning and refining my ideas.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331752)

<<Then you try to suggest that genes only determine physical appearance, they can't determine behaviour.>>

No, I was saying that the genes that control the differences in appearance between races do not control personality.

<<I have never even suggested that the genes which control human appearance also control human behaviour.>>

Oh, so now you’re acknowledging what I had meant? No, you hadn’t suggested that. What I had said was following on from my pointing out of just how few genes control looks.

<<But there are genes which control behaviour because you have already admitted it.>>

“Admitted”, as if it were done reluctantly. Ding!

<<Then you suggest that genetic behaviour [cannot] apply to groups.>>

More that it is extremely unlikely given the evidence we currently have. [Behaviour] is a polygenetic trait …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331584)

<<But if a group of people share genes for physical appearances, then a reasonable person might ask, how is it that they [cannot] share genes for behaviour?>>

See above.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Now comes every excuse …>>

“Excuse”. Ding!

<<God knows what these "environmental" factors are.>>

You mentioned some of them yourself:

“"Socioeconomic factors". "Environmental factors" "Nutrition" "Blah, blah, blah."” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331623)

<<… I am then forced to go back over innumerable pages of OLO trying to figure out what these "environmental" causes might be.>>

“… how have your dodgy theories accounted for factors such as poor nutrition, poor education, poor parenting, low socioeconomic status, postcode and the resulting high stress levels during the developmental years, for criminal behaviour and low IQ?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330439)

I even quoted you in my last post listing some of them above.

<<AJ wrote "it’s about the marginalisation of minorities and socioeconomic factors.">>

Where did I write that? Not even Google can find that one. And why didn’t you choose a more comprehensive quote like the one above?

Tsk, tsk.

<<No reasoned argument from you on "marginalisation" …>>

Did you ask me to expand on it? I bet you didn’t. We do have word limits, you know.

<<… poverty is only marginally linked to crime.>>

No, the link is strong. Most of the poorest postcodes/countries have the highest crime rates.

[Cue argument about rural areas that I don't have the word allowance to address now.]

<<Once again, you submit "reasons" why some ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour, but submit no argument as to their validity.>>

I link you to multiple studies demonstrating my claims.

Your next paragraph just descends into a ramble about a heap of factors that you have never asked me to elaborate on. You’ve only ever denied the significance of most of them.

<<No reasoned argument from you as to how any of these factors causes crime.>>

And all you ever had to do was ask.

<<Easily dismissed with genetics. Dumb people eat crap, do not value education, are poor parents, inhabit the lowest level of society, and they not only live in bad "postcodes", they create bad postcodes.>>

This is doesn’t address which came first and it appeals to Survivorship bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias). That’s nine fallacies now.

Instances of emotive language: 11

AJ Philips this subject is about Adler guns not about you who love yourself very much. People who like guns all the time are sick in the mind. You do not speak of the guns no. But you in love with yourself instead very much I think more then anybody else on OLO you so please go away with your "self-love" AJ Philips.

Wow!! Looks like I've been sick in the mind for all the years that I can remember.
The first gun that I handled was my fathers 'Safety Hammerless' .38 S&W revolver; I must have been about four.

AJ wrote

"Yes, if you read the quote in context, you will see that that was a clumsy way of differentiating between the micro level (individual/direct decent) and the macro level (races/ethnicities)"

Your premise therefore is, that the link between genetics and behaviour is very strong in individuals, but it is insignificant within ethnicities?

That is ridiculous. Every reader knows that genetics works with individual organisms, and within groups of organisms. Behaviour is genetically heritable. Intelligence is genetically heritable. Intelligence is a factor in behaviour and in personality. Personality is a factor in behaviour. If a group of organisms evolve within a particular environment to have generally similar physical characteristics, then they can also evolve to have generally similar, IQ's, personality characteristics, and behaviour. There are clear examples in the animal world where genetic inheritance within species results in groups of organisms within particular environments possessing similar personalities and behaviour.

AJ wrote

"You fail to recognise that humans are culturally, socially, intellectually and emotionally far more sophisticated than other species and this has a massive - if not completely negating - effect on our ability to pin down common personality traits as genetic; especially when geneticists themselves still cannot find any genetic links."

You have stated that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture. That is a clear implication that nature and nurture affects behaviour in all organisms, either individuals or in groups. If you claim that the genetic inheritance of behaviour and personality does not apply to groups, then you should amend your own position by saying that "nature does not significantly apply to groups. In groups it is mostly nurture."

You claim that scientists can not find any common ethnic personality traits as genetic. The science of investigating inherited behavioural genetics is called "Behavioural Genetics." Arguably, the world's leading geneticist, James Watson, head of the prestigious Human Genome Project, got into the poo with the PC crowd for claiming that IQ and race are linked. His HGP team were prevented by act of Congress to investigate the genetic alleles making people prone to criminal behaviour.

Anybody seen AJ around, anywhere? Damn, he has flown the coop again. Just when I feel I was closing in on the sod.

Well, AJ, if you are out there and taking a sneak peek at this, please come back and play. Thanks to you, I have now done a bit more research and have discovered some more facts which I just can't wait to throw in your face. That's what I like about debating with you, AJ. You motivate me enough to overcome my naturally lazy disposition and get me researching the topic I really love.

Thanks to you, I discovered the link between genetics, behaviour and sub-species, which had been a hole in my arguments previously.

Anyhoo AJ, I have enough quotes from you now to turn the tables on you and get your justifying your own premises. Especially the ones where you contradict yourself. The one I wish to investigate right now however is your attitude to your stated position that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture. You have agreed that when you say "nature" you mean genetics. But all you want to talk about is "nurture." Your position is a contradiction. You can't agree with me that genetics and behaviour is linked, and then argue that genetics is so insignificant and that only "nurture" does anything.

Either behaviour is a product of both nature and nurture, or it is not. You are implying that genetics works with individuals, but it does not work for groups of individuals. If that is not what you are saying, then make a statement clarifying your position. If it is your position, justify it.

"boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead"

Another very well researched and beautifully argued position from Craig Minns and his anti gun brigade.

LEGO,

It hadn’t even been 48 hours since your last post and you were already doing the victory dance.

<<Damn, he has flown the coop again.>>

“Again”, as if it were a regular occurrence. Ding!

<<Your premise therefore is, that the link between genetics and behaviour is very strong in individuals, but it is insignificant within ethnicities?>>

You’re confusing genetic influence with heritability.

<<That is ridiculous.>>

I sense an oversimplification coming from Professor LEGO.

<<Every reader knows that genetics works with individual organisms, and within groups of organisms.>>

What exactly do you mean by “works”? This reminds me of creationists referring to “kinds”. Suitably vague.

<<Behaviour is genetically heritable.>>

The foundations for inclinations are, yes.

<<Intelligence is genetically heritable.>>

As with the above, it would appear that the potential for the type of intelligence that IQ tests test for is heritable, yes. How do you know that the type of intelligence that IQ tests test for is the same type that is required to prevent offending behaviour (remember your chicken-and-egg problem before you answer)? After all, it was pointed out to you earlier that there appears to be no correlation between common sense and intelligence, then there’s white-collar crime... And as someone who thinks that common sense trumps empirical data, this appears to be a real problem for you. IQ tests don’t test for common sense.

Here’s a question for you: what happens to people who have low IQs but a lot of common sense?

<<Intelligence is a factor in behaviour and in personality.>>

Inevitably, yes.

<<Personality is a factor in behaviour.>>

Obviously.

<<If a group of organisms evolve within a particular environment to have generally similar physical characteristics, then they can also evolve to have generally similar, IQ's, personality characteristics, and behaviour.>>

Not necessarily. This is a non sequitur. Again, there are far more gene’s, and far more combinations of genes, that lay the potential for intelligence and personality. Secondly, brains are a lot more complex than the rest of our bodies and are far more influenced by environment than our appearance.

Continued…

…Continued

For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same.

<<There are clear examples in the animal world where genetic inheritance within species results in groups of organisms within particular environments possessing similar personalities and behaviour.>>

From species to species, sure. But humans are all one species.

<<You have stated that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.>>

Correct.

<<That is a clear implication that nature and nurture affects behaviour in all organisms, either individuals or in groups.>>

Incorrect.

That behaviour is a product of nature and nurture says nothing about the extent to which it is heritable, particularly across large populations.

<<You claim that scientists [cannot] find any common ethnic personality traits as genetic.>>

As far as I know, that is correct, yes.

<<Arguably, the world's leading geneticist, James Watson, head of the prestigious Human Genome Project, got into the poo with the PC crowd for claiming that IQ and race are linked.>>

That’s because he had no evidence for his claim. This is an Appeal to Authority. That’s eleven fallacies now.

<<His HGP team were prevented by act of Congress to investigate the genetic alleles making people prone to criminal behaviour.>>

Gee, I wonder the racist old fool wants to do that? Could you link me to some further information please? I’d like to learn more about this incident.

<<Thanks to you, I have now done a bit more research and have discovered some more facts which I just can't wait to throw in your face.>>

Oh please, do share. Since you’re enjoying the research so much, here’s a few articles demonstrating why your racial theories are wrong:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Sternberg2/publication/8089268_Intelligence_Race_and_Genetics/links/09e4150d72eda62d14000000.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-60171.pdf
http://www.joelvelasco.net/teaching/3334/block99-how_heritability_misleads_about_race.pdf
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Rushton,%20J.%20Philippe%20%26%20Arthur%20R.%20Jensen.%20%22Thirty%20Years%20of%20Research%20on%20Race%20Differences%20in%20Cognitive%20Ability.%22%20Psychology,%20Public%20Policy,%20and%20Law%2011,%20no.%202%20(2005).pdf
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreana_Haley/publication/8997472_Socioeconomic_status_modifies_heritability_of_IQ_in_young_children/links/0deec516b9271c1c48000000.pdf
http://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Lewontin-Jensen-Bulletin-of-the-Atomic-Scientists.pdf

I’ve had a look for some scholarly work supporting scientific racism, but couldn’t find any. Perhaps you could help me out?

Instances of emotive language: 12
Fallacies: 11

At the risk of being considered boastful, I can now state that I can fire 7 shots out of a muzzle loading gun faster than anyone can fire 7 from an Adler.

Does rather make the proposal that the Adler is really fast firing look as silly as it is.

Thank God you are back, AJ. I missed you. Nothing to do all weekend but read my new John Grisham novel. But I am off to work, so this is a quick post.

You know I am backing you into a corner, and now you are getting cute and playing dumb. (although, it may not be an act)

AJ tries to muddy the water.

"You’re confusing genetic influence with heritability."

And you are being deliberately obtuse. Your quote plainly advocates the position that genetics works (or functions) in individuals, but does not work (or function) with groups of individuals. If this is not what you meant, then bloody well tell us what you meant. If it is what you meant, then please explain how genetics can not work in groups of individuals.

AJ wrote

"As with the above, it would appear that the potential for the type of intelligence that IQ tests test for is heritable, yes. How do you know that the type of intelligence that IQ tests test for is the same type......."

Another red herring. Toss as many as you want, AJ, I am not going to be distracted. You really are getting desperate.

AJ wrote

"Here’s a question for you: what happens to people who have low IQs but a lot of common sense?"

Another red herring.

AJ wrote

"That behaviour is a product of nature and nurture says nothing about the extent to which it is heritable, particularly across large populations."

What kind of crazy logic is that? You acknowledge that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture, then imply that genetic derived behaviour is not heritable in large populations. Gee, that's funny. If a group of socially isolated human beings can evolve within a particular environment to have genetically heritable, similar physical appearances, and genetically heritable, similar physical abilities, and to have genetically heritable, similar susceptibility and non susceptibility to diseases and allergies, how is it genetics can not work (or function) to produce genetically heritable, similar IQ's and behaviour?

LEGO,

I like your choice of author, I'm reading 'The King of Torts' at present and have 'The Rainmaker' up next, the latter was $1 from the Salvos.

LEGO,

Given that you’re the only one here who has committed a fallacy (eleven of them, to be precise), I hardly see how you’re backing me into a corner.

<<Your quote plainly advocates the position that genetics works (or functions) in individuals, but does not work (or function) with groups of individuals.>>

That depends on what you mean by “works”. You still haven’t clarified this. “Functions” is just as vague. Apparently inconvenient details “muddy” the waters for your simplistic, black and white thinking.

<<If this is not what you meant, then bloody well tell us what you meant.>>

I’ll be glad to once you’ve clarified what you mean, but “works” has no useful scientific meaning. It’s too board.

<<Another red herring. Toss as many as you want, AJ, I am not going to be distracted.>>

No red herring or desperation on this side, LEGO. Apparently there is on yours, though. Another serious problem for your racial theories and you can’t answer it. They’re really stacking up now, aren’t they?

<<Another red herring.>>

If you’re just going to write off crucial questions as “red herrings”, then I may as well leave. But that’s exactly what you want, isn’t it? Do I have to start counting the number of questions you can’t answer too?

Again, what happens to people who have low IQs but a lot of common sense?

<<You acknowledge that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture …>>

Correct.

<<… then imply that genetic derived behaviour is not heritable in large populations.>>

More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability), which applies to all heritable traits to varying degrees.

<<If a group of socially isolated human beings can evolve within a particular environment to have genetically heritable, similar physical appearances …>>

I’ve already explained the difference here. You clearly haven’t read any of those articles either, have you? Still waiting on you to provide me with some.

Where are these fun facts you have for me too, by the way?

AJ wrote

"More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' , which applies to all heritable traits to varying degrees."

There you go again, AJ. You first agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then you claim that nurture "drowns out" nature. That is a contradiction. Either behaviour is a product of nature AND nurture, or it is not. You can't agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then deny it.

How do you justify your self evident contradiction?

Oh, and please note, I am not going to pretend that I don't know what "drowns out" means, even though it is hardly a scientific term. Unlike yourself, I don't have to pretend that I don't understand plain English in order to dodge explaining what my own position is.

You're the corner now, aren't you, AJ? You have to support the premise that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, probably because it is in your university Criminology curriculum. So you can hardly deny it. But you are denying it. You need to deny it, even though you know it is a lie, because you know it validates my position. So first we get all of this mental gymnastics which are clearly contradictory, then comes "me no speaka da English." "Me no understand what "work" or "function" means?"

Hahaha.

If nurture "drowns out" nature, then your position must be, that behaviour is almost entirely a product of nurture. Is that what you "criminology" text books tell you, AJ? They don't, do they?. The concept of "nature versus nurture" in explaining behaviour goes back to the ancient Greeks. I found out about nature and nurture by reading my five Psychology text books, and even though Psychology is not quite Criminology, you have to understand psychology to be a criminologist.

So you are in the uncomfortable position of proposing a premise which your own text books would tell you is absolute nonsense.

To Ise Mise.

That should keep AJ busy for a while.

My favourite John Grisham book is "The Rainmaker". Although "A Time to Kill" is not far behind, and it now has a sequel. (who's name escapes me". Other great books I recommend by Grisham are "The Runaway Jury", "The Pelican Brief", "The Brethren" and one of his latest, "The Street Lawyer."

"The Street Lawyer" is interesting in that it could have almost been written by Michael Connolly. The "hero" of Grisham's book is a lawyer who's office is in a car, in the same way that Connolly's lawyer hero "Mickey Haller" (in "The Lincoln Lawyer") uses a car for his office. Connolly also writes the famous "Harry Bosch" detective books.

Other authors who's work I regularly read are Ian Rankin (Inspector rebus detective novels) and Cathy Reichs ( who writes stories about a female anthropologist who is attached to forensics, who has a knack of solving crimes.)

What do mean "again", LEGO?

<<There you go again, AJ. You first agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then you claim that nurture "drowns out" nature.>>

If you acknowledge that I've said that before, then why didn't you reflect that the first time you attempted to summarise my position?

I’ll tell you why: because you’re all about empty rhetoric and needed make it appear as if you’ve discredited what I had said many times before.

<<That is a contradiction. Either behaviour is a product of nature AND nurture, or it is not.>>

No, there is no contradiction. This is another false dichotomy from you. A product of your inability to see the grey.

<<You can't agree that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, and then deny it.>>

I didn’t.

<<How do you justify your [self-evident] contradiction?>>

Well firstly, you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction. Secondly, I gave you plenty of scholarly reading supporting my claim, and three factors upon which my claim is based that you have not even bothered to address.

<<Oh, and please note, I am not going to pretend that I don't know what "drowns out" means, even though it is hardly a scientific term.>>

Of course not. Why would you?

Incidentally, I haven't pretended to not know what “works” means. I have simply asked that you specify a uselessly broad term. Something you still refuse to do, I note.

<<… I don't have to pretend that I don't understand plain English in order to dodge explaining what my own position is.>>

You do apparently have to dodge a lot of questions though, not a good look.

<<You're [in] the corner now, aren't you, AJ?>>

Yes, the one who has not yet committed a fallacy; has not had to resort to emotive language; has not had to dodge questions; and has provided peer-reviewed evidence for their claims is the one “in the corner”.

That’s adorable, LEGO.

The rest of your post doesn't contain much to respond to. But your manic tone of sheer panic, and the nervous laugh, were certainly telling.

Dearie me, LEGO. That’s gotta be embarrassing.

<<That should keep AJ busy for a while.>>

If only I had posted it three minutes earlier, eh?

I fail to see how a lot of ducking and weaving and unsubstantiated allegations of contradictions would keep me busy, though.

Since I’m here, there is one thing I would like to expand on. Firstly, let me just say that I don’t for a second think you’re stupid enough to truly believe that requesting that you specify what you mean by “works” is me pretending to not know what you’re talking about. In fact, I think the reason you sound so nervous now is because the penny dropped with that question of mine and you realise now that your Fallacy of Composition is highly flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

That’s twelve fallacies now too, by the way. (Sorry, I would have pointed it out earlier but couldn’t remember the name of it.)

Anyway, just to put this to rest, let’s look at what “work” means in this sense:

2. Be engaged in [an] activity in order to achieve a result. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/work)

Pretty broad stuff there, wouldn’t you agree? So, what “activity” is it that you’re referring to when you attempt to conflate genetics on the macro and micro levels? If you just mean, ‘to transfer genetic ‘information’ in general’, then we arrive back at my differentiation between behavioral genetics on both the macro and micro levels. Something you are yet to address without a false dichotomy or the Fallacy of Composition.

Incidentally, “drowned-out” may not be a scientific term, but, unlike your “works”, it was adequately descriptive, so your analogy was false. That’s thirteen fallacies now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy

<<If nurture "drowns out" nature, then your position must be, that behaviour is almost entirely a product of nurture.>>

Across large populations, yes. And yes, my criminology, sociology and psychology textbooks that touch on this all agree.

I’m still waiting on some peer-reviewed work supporting your position. What happened to all these fun facts you were going to “throw” in my face too? Or was that just tough talk?

Fallacies: 13

Your position is a contradiction. You recognise the principle that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, then claim that nurture "drowns out " nature. I can't make you recognise your own contradictory position if you refuse to do so. All I can do is to keep pointing it up, and let our readers decide if you are dumb or devious. Personally, I think it is a bit of both.

AJ wrote "Well firstly, you haven’t demonstrated a contradiction. Secondly, I gave you plenty of scholarly reading supporting my claim, and three factors upon which my claim is based that you have not even bothered to address."

Firstly, I don't debate against links. If you have something which supports your reluctantly admitted "claim" that nurture "drowns out" genetics, then précis them and post them up. Secondly, since you have consistently refused to submit a reasoned argument supporting whatever position you are advocating, then your claim to have provided three "factors" supporting your "claim" is complete nonsense.

You did not even willingly provide a "claim" in the first place. I had spend about 500 pages doing my best to wheedle one out of you. I knew that sooner or later you would stuff up, and you did not disappoint me. It took me so long because your posts are so disjointed and usually consist of just personal attacks on me, sneery one, two, three, or four liner replies, endless questions, and deliberately misleading statements, that it took a while to collate your replies into any sort of order that made sense. We would have come to this position long ago had you been honest in the first place and submitted a position you were prepared to defend. You must have been aware of your own contradiction because you have done everything you could to conceal it.

Genetics plays a significant role in human behaviour. You know it, I know it, the AIC knows it. The question begs, why is a person who is studying to be a behavioural scientist doing his utmost to deny what he knows is the truth?

Still not a contradiction, LEGO.

<<You recognise the principle that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture …>>

Yes.

<<… then claim that nurture "drowns out " nature.>>

“Across large populations, yes.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332018)

<<Firstly, I don't debate against links.>>

Oh, that’s okay. They serve their purpose just being there, for two reasons: they demonstrate that you won’t read something if it contradicts your beliefs, and that only one of us has evidence for their position.

<<If you have something which supports your reluctantly admitted "claim" that nurture "drowns out" genetics, then précis them and post them up.>>

“... polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, [that] drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable[, and] 'genetic variability' …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331975)

“Reluctantly admitted”. Why would I be reluctant to say that? Ding!

<<… since you have consistently refused to submit a reasoned argument supporting whatever position you are advocating, then your claim to have provided three "factors" supporting your "claim" is complete nonsense.>>

If you’d like me to expand on a point, then just ask. But I could not describe all the evidence in even four consecutive posts, if that's what you're asking for.

“Whatever”. As if it were vague. Ding!

<<I had spend about 500 pages doing my best to wheedle [a claim] out of you.>>

No, I have always maintained this position.

<<It took me so long because your posts are so disjointed and usually consist of just personal attacks on me …>>

Try finding a single instance of me attacking you without addressing your claims first.

<<You must have been aware of your own contradiction because you have done everything you could to conceal it.>>

A “contradiction” that you can only make apparent by over-simplifying what I’ve said. (See my first point.)

<<Genetics plays a significant role in human behaviour.>>

I know. To what degree, however, is still debated.

<<… why is a person who is studying to be a behavioural scientist doing his utmost to deny what he knows is the truth?>>

Where have I done that?

Instances of emotive language: 14
Fallacies: 12

Some additional thoughts, LEGO.

I should point out that it’s unrealistic of you to fill your posts with absurd claims, fallacies, and emotive language, and then expect me to just ignore it all so that I can attempt to do what I have already done intermittently over the last three years and summarise all the evidence debunking your Fallacy of Composition.

Speaking of which, here are those articles again. This time with their titles, just to make it more obvious as to what it is that you’re up against and what it is that you refuse to read. I’ll even shorten the URLs so that they don’t distract from the titles:

Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability: http://goo.gl/65v7tw
How Heritability Misleads About Race: http://goo.gl/ZOU4ck
Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children: http://goo.gl/WLJ7YS
Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina: http://goo.gl/yPwG5t
Race and Intelligence: http://goo.gl/AXUhwW

Finally, I’d like to re-visit this for a moment:

<<I had [to] spend about 500 pages doing my best to wheedle [a claim] out of you.>>

No, you have spent “500 pages” over the last three years doing your best to deny what I have said, pretend that I’ve said something that I haven’t, and ignore what I’ve said when it’s inconvenient. And now that you’re finally quoting me (as I have always requested and recommended), we’ve gotten to the crux of our disagreement a lot faster because you’re forced to address what I actually say (although you still paraphrase when you need to over-simplify what I’ve said).

Surprise, surprise!

Now you are clinging for dear life to your contrived “contradiction” because it is the last card you have to play.

It is thoroughly dishonest of you to sit there and pretend that it is you who has done the hard work and finally “beaten” something out of me, when you have done your darnedest over the years to avoid getting to this point out of an apparent fear that your position won’t hold up, and now that we’re here, it hasn’t.

Which is why you’re panicking.

AJ wrote

"Which is why you’re panicking."

Actually, I am sitting here with a big grin on my face, for two reasons. I have just heard that Trump is winning, and I have got you right where I want you. I have an opponent who's logic is demonstrably bankrupt, who's stated positions are contradictory, and who refuses to even acknowledge his contradictions. Checkmate.

Once more for the dummies.

You admit that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture. Then you say that nurture "drowns out" genetics. If nurture "drowns out" genetics, then the role that genetics plays in behaviour is insignificant. Therefore, you position must be, that behaviour is a product of nurture only.

Now, you can not claim that behaviour is a product of nurture and nature, and then claim that it is a product of nurture only. That is a contradiction. You definitely have a credibility problem here, AJ.

AJ wrote

"Oh, that’s okay. They serve their purpose just being there, for two reasons: they demonstrate that you won’t read something if it contradicts your beliefs, and that only one of us has evidence for their position"

I read an entire book by an author who shares your strange worldview and peculiar logic. He did not bother to address the scientific reasons why crime and genetics are linked. His position was an entirely moral one. He said that the link must not exist, and nobody should even look for one if it did. Now, I asked you to provide evidence to support your position that nurture "drowns out" genetics, and you wrote.

“... polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, [that] drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable[, and] 'genetic variability' …”

That is not an argument, AJ, it is simply an unsupported statement.

AJ wrote "Speaking of which, here are those articles again."

Then read them, AJ, and internalise them. Then use them to provide a reasoned argument to support your odd beliefs. That would be a lot better than the laughable contradiction you are offering at the moment.

Still no contradiction, LEGO.

<<You admit that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture.>>

“Nature”, in this context, implies genetics performing a specific role. Now, in a sleight of hand, you are attempting to broaden it to genetics in general.

“Admit”, as if it were done reluctantly. Ding!

<<Then you say that nurture "drowns out" genetics.>>

No, not genetics in general. There are still physical differences (as opposed to behavioural).

You see what you did there? Very dishonest.

<<If nurture "drowns out" genetics, then the role that genetics plays in behaviour is insignificant. Therefore, you position must be, that behaviour is a product of nurture only.>>

Not on an individual level. Again, you’re confusing genetic influence with heritability.

<<Now, you [cannot] claim that behaviour is a product of nurture and nature, and then claim that it is a product of nurture only.>>

I know, and I haven’t. See above.

<<I read an entire book by an author who … did not bother to address the scientific reasons why crime and genetics are linked. His position was an entirely moral one.>>

Why would you bother reading it then? That’s ridiculous. Morality has no more to do with how genes function than it has to do with evolution (as creationists would claim).

<<He said that the link must not exist …>>

What an idiot. Could you tell me what the book was, or who the author was? I bet you can't.

<<That is not an argument, AJ, it is simply an unsupported statement.>>

Oh, but you didn’t want to address it when it was in the form of an argument:

“… polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability), which applies to all heritable traits to varying degrees." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331975)

All you did was skew what I had said to produce a contradiction that doesn’t exist.

<<Then read [the articles], AJ, and internalise them. Then use them to provide a reasoned argument …>>

I have, and I did.

Instances of emotive language: 15
Fallacies: 13

AJ wrote

"Still no contradiction, LEGO."

How do you do it, AJ? How do you come right out and say that black is white? You can lie to me, you can lie to the audience, but when you lie to yourself and submit an "explanation" which you, yourself know is complete BS, then you have no business being in a university studying to be a scientist.

AJ gets creative

"“Nature”, in this context, implies genetics performing a specific role. Now, in a sleight of hand, you are attempting to broaden it to genetics in general."

I am using genetics in the way that any person who completed secondary school can easily understand it. That includes you.

AJ delves into the world of the bizarre.

"No, not genetics in general. There are still physical differences (as opposed to behavioural)."

"Not on an individual level. Again, you’re confusing genetic influence with heritability."

Look dummy, I don't know what you think you are doing here, other than proving to every interested reader that you are a wild eyed ideologue who will dream up any blathering rubbish to deny your glaring contradiction. But if you want to do make an idiot of yourself, go right ahead. As a matter of fact, it even helps me. Those who think that anti racists are the smart ones are getting a reality check.

You can muddy the waters, AJ, erect smokescreens, toss red herrings, and try to baffle me with bullshiit. But you are not going to admit that genetics is a significant factor in behaviour, then claim that it is not, and then say that there is no contradiction in what you are saying.

Checkmate.

Nice dodge there, LEGO.

<<I am using genetics in the way that any person who completed secondary school can easily understand it.>>

I pointed out that we were discussing “nature” (in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’) when you deceitfully shifted to the broader notion of “genetics” to fabricate an alleged contradiction on my behalf. So telling me that you are, “using genetics in the way that any person who completed secondary school can easily understand it”, doesn’t address my point or absolve you of your wrongdoing. Nor does it clarify what you mean by “genetics”, for that matter.

I assume you’re not going to clarify what you mean by “genetics” either, just as you refused to clarify what you meant by “works”.

<<Look dummy, I don't know what you think you are doing here, other than proving to every interested reader that you are a [wild-eyed] ideologue who will dream up any blathering rubbish to deny your glaring contradiction. But if you want to do make an idiot of yourself, go right ahead.>>

Ah, the ad hominem. You know, LEGO, for all your faults, that’s one I never expected from you. That makes fourteen fallacies now.

<<… you are not going to admit that genetics is a significant factor in behaviour, then claim that it is not, and then say that there is no contradiction in what you are saying.>>

Oh, of course. I wouldn’t dream of it! And if you ever spot me doing that, just point it out and I’ll retract what I said.

<<Checkmate.>>

That’s the way, LEGO. Provide no evidence for your assertions, have a dummy spit, and then run off declaring “checkmate”.

Classy.

I note with interest that you couldn’t name that book, just as I had predicted. Here are some other challenges you’ve evaded:

1. You can't explain how you've controlled for environmental factors, while refusing to acknowledge that you haven't.
2. You haven’t overcome your chicken-and-egg problem regarding low SES and intelligence.
3. You can't explain where common sense (as opposed to intelligence) fits into your racial theories.

Fallacies: 14

AJ wrote

"I pointed out that we were discussing “nature” (in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’) when you deceitfully shifted to the broader notion of “genetics” to fabricate an alleged contradiction on my behalf."

Did I? When asked by me " Exactly what do you mean by "nature"? Is the "nature" you are talking about "genetics"?" Your answer

AJ wrote

Yes, and physiology. That sort of thing.

Now you are contradicting yourself again. You have painted yourself into a corner and there is no way out.

AJ wrote

"Oh, of course. I wouldn’t dream of it! And if you ever spot me doing that, just point it out and I’ll retract what I said."

You did "dream it", AJ. Go ahead and "retract", but you will still have to explain what you are talking about. OK. Lets look at how your dreams have checkmated you.

You first dreamed that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.

AJ wrote

"Two factors help shape our mentality - nature and nurture - and the different combinations of the two have a multiplying effect on who we are as individuals."

You agreed that by "Nature" you meant genetics. Then came more dreamy contradictions.

AJ wrote

"More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable."

When I asked you if your position was that genetic factors are insignificant to environmental factors, your dreamy reply was.

AJ wrote

"Yes, because that’s what all the research suggests."

You dreamily agreed that genetics and crime are linked.

AJ wrote

"Genetics and crime are linked, and the link is very strong."

Then you dreamily contradicted yourself again. When I said to you that crime and genetics are linked, your reply.

AJ wrote

"No, it’s not, and you haven’t yet addressed my rebuttal."

Summarising your dreamy position.

Genetics and crime are linked, but they are not linked. Behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture. But nurture "drowns out" genetics to "insignificance", so behaviour must be entirely a product of nurture.

Checkmate. You must be dreaming.

Yes, you did, LEGO.

<<Did I? When asked by me " Exactly what do you mean by "nature"? Is the "nature" you are talking about "genetics"?" Your answer …>>

Correct, and as I pointed out earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332069), in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’, ‘nature' refers to genetics performing a specific role: the influence that it has on behaviour. (http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html)

My accusation of dishonesty remains. At least one of us can clarify what they mean, though.

<<Lets look at how your dreams have checkmated you.>>

This’ll be fun.

<<You first [acknowledged] that behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.>>

And have continued to do so, yes.

<<You agreed that by "Nature" you meant genetics.>>

Ultimately, yes.

<<Then [wrote:] "More that its polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable.">>

Across large populations. Once again, you’re confusing genetic influence with heritability, and ignoring the differences between the macro and micro levels.

<<When I asked you if your position was that genetic factors are insignificant to environmental factors, your dreamy reply was[: "Yes, because that’s what all the research suggests.">>

No, that was said in regards to the genetic influence of behaviour amongst races. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331731)

Incidentally, as a general rule, you don’t use quotation marks or say “you wrote” when paraphrasing.

<<You … agreed that genetics and crime are linked.>>

Correct.

<<Then you dreamily contradicted yourself again. When I said to you that crime and genetics are linked, your reply [was] … "No, it’s not, and you haven’t yet addressed my rebuttal.">>

“The, “No, it’s not”, was in [regards to the] differing incarceration rates between the sexes being a good analogy for differing incarceration rates between races. It wasn't a denial that genetics plays a role.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331748)

That's the second time you've made that "mistake".

<<Checkmate.>>

Apparently not. All you did was attribute my responses to things you didn't say or ask at the time. I think it’s high time you started accompanying your quotes with links.

Fat chance, eh? You couldn’t try to pull one over me if you did.

Some additional thoughts, LEGO.

Do you remember how I’ve always noted in the past that the reason you want me to ‘state my position’ when you’re cornered (without justifying why I should or why, “you’re wrong”, is not an adequate position) is because you need something from me to attack to distract from the flaws in your own arguments?

Well, that’s happening right now.

I listed three major problems with your racial theories earlier, yet you don’t even seem to care that they exist anymore. So on-the-backfoot are you now, that the best you can hope for is a ‘draw’, and so here you are, desperately trying to invent a contradiction where one doesn’t exist so that you can at least leave feeling like both of our positions have problems with them, or, heaven forbid, walk away convincing yourself that the problems with your position are no longer problems simply because you found a contradiction in mine.

Anyway, thank you for proving me right there.

Speaking of this alleged contradiction, here are four things you’ve done so far in your attempts to fabricate it:

1. Ignore the difference between behavioural genetics on the macro level and the micro level.
2. Switch from ‘behavioural genetics specifically’ to ‘genetics in general’ when convenient.
3. Conflate heritability with the influence of genetics on behaviour.
4. Attribute my responses to things you never said at the time.

It’s not looking good for you, is it LEGO?

Not to worry. Only two more weeks of this and then you can slink off having convinced yourself that no one’s watching anymore because the discussion will be hidden by default. Then we case start the whole thing over again on another thread.

Won’t that be fun?

AJ wrote

"Correct, and as I pointed out earlier , in the context of ‘nature vs. nurture’, ‘nature' refers to genetics performing a specific role: the influence that it has on behaviour."

Could you state that in plain English? Start off with a sentence which has a subject and a predicate. Does that mean that you agree that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture? Or is it nurture only, because nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance? You can't have it both ways. No matter how much unintelligible blather you post up in "explanation."

AJ wrote

"Across large populations. Once again, you’re confusing genetic influence with heritability, and ignoring the differences between the macro and micro levels."

Genetics is all about trait heritability, dummy. Genetic trait inheritance occurs in all organisms and within groups of organisms, and includes physical appearance, physical abilities, susceptibility to disease, immunity to disease, IQ, and behaviour. Grizzly bears and African buffaloes proves that your claim that genetic heritability of behaviour can not be common in groups of organisms within species is demonstrably wrong.

AJ wrote

"Incidentally, as a general rule, you don’t use quotation marks or say “you wrote” when paraphrasing."

"As a general rule", both sides of a debate submit their premises, explain the reasons why their premises are correct with reasoned arguments, and with evidence, and attack each others arguments, evidence, and logic. But you won't do that because you already know that your ideology's logic is bankrupt. All you want o do is prevaricate and stifle debate.

AJ wrote

"I listed three major problems with your racial theories earlier, yet you don’t even seem to care that they exist anymore."

You listed three reasons why nurture trumps genetics. You first claim is that behaviour is a product of genetics and nurture, and then you provide "three reasons" (with no supporting arguments) why it is nurture only.

Your position is still a contradiction.

Either behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, or nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance. You can't have it both ways

Once again for the slow, LEGO.

<<Does that mean that you agree that behaviour is a product of nature (genetics) and nurture?>>

Yes.

<<Or is it nurture only, because nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance?>>

No.

For the fourth time now, my “drowns out” comment was in regards to heritability across large populations, not the influence of genes on behaviour.

<<You can't have it both ways.>>

Of course not. That would be contradictory.

<<Genetics is all about trait heritability, dummy.>>

Not quite. It’s also about the inherited characteristics. In a sleight of hand, you switch between and conflate the two to confuse the situation and pull a swiftie. Here’s an example of you doing just that:

“You acknowledge that behaviour is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture, then imply that [genetic-derived] behaviour is not heritable in large populations.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331972)

Notice you went from ‘behaviour’ (an inherited *characteristic*) to just heritability in general? Tsk, tsk!

<<Genetic trait inheritance occurs in all organisms and within groups of organisms, and includes ...>>

Correct.

<<Grizzly bears and African buffaloes proves that your claim that genetic heritability of behaviour [cannot] be common in groups of organisms within species is demonstrably wrong.>>

Races are not species. They’re not even subspecies. Apples and oranges. Furthermore, humans all behave surprisingly similar when placed in the same circumstances, given how complex our brains are.

<<"As a general rule", both sides of a debate submit their premises …>>

In a formal debate, yes. But this isn’t a formal debate. I’m just pointing out that there are problems with your racial theories. What I may think beyond that has no relevance to the validity of your arguments.

<<You listed three reasons why nurture trumps genetics.>>

Where? I bet you can’t list them. Just like you can’t tell me the name of this mystery book or what these facts were that you were going to throw in my face.

<<Either behaviour is a product of nature and nurture, or nurture "drowns out" genetics to insignificance. You can't have it both ways>>

Correct.

Still no links to my quotes, I see.

AJ wrote

"For the fourth time now, my “drowns out” comment was in regards to heritability across large populations, not the influence of genes on behaviour."

"Large populations" of ethnically distinct individuals share common, heritable traits. If individuals within ethnicities can genetically inherit generally common physical appearances, generally common physical attributes, generally common resistance to disease, they can obviously inherit general IQ levels, and genetic proneness to violent behaviour. Both IQ and behaviour are heritable. I have already explained this previously, but since you are hanging onto it like a drowning man clutching a piece of wood, we will go over it again. The study of genetic inheritance across populations is a separate discipline of genetics called "Population Genetics." Here is Wikipedia.

"Population Genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and between populations, and is a part of evolutionary biology. Studies in this branch of biology examine such phenomena as adaptation, speciation, and population structure."

You know that every university text book on Psychology stresses that behavior is a product of nature and nurture, and that applies to everybody. But you hate the fact that behavior and genetics are linked, because that explains why so many dysfunctional ethnicities are so prone to criminal behavior. So you got creative. You acknowledge that genetics and behaviour are linked in individuals, then claim that genetics and behaviour can not be linked in groups of individuals. That is complete BS, and you know it.

AJ tried

"Races are not species. They’re not even subspecies. Apples and oranges. Furthermore, humans all behave surprisingly similar when placed in the same circumstances, given how complex our brains are."

The human race is a species. Different ethnicities of humans equate to sub species within the animal world, and you know it. But like a Creationist denying a truckload of fossils, you will never acknowledge what you already know is the truth. Because your precious, world saving ideology will never concede that some ethnicities are trouble prone because they have generally low intelligence and are genetically much more predisposed to violent behaviour than others.

Once again, LEGO, you fail to account for the differences in the heritability of, and the influence of environmental factors on, the physical and the behavioural.

<<If individuals within ethnicities can genetically inherit generally common physical … attributes, … resistance to disease, they can obviously inherit general IQ levels, and genetic proneness to violent behaviour.>>

"For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331960)

<<I have already explained this previously, but …>>

Actually, you haven’t. But let’s take a look at what it is that you believe you have already explained…

<<The study of genetic inheritance across populations is a separate discipline of genetics called "Population Genetics.">>

No, they're the same discipline. You even provide a quote explaining just that:

“Population Genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and between populations …” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics)

Sheesh! This one’s right up there with the time you attributed something that I had said, to yourself: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331621

<<You know that every university text book on Psychology stresses that behavior is a product of nature and nurture, and that applies to everybody.>>

That, I do. Mine included.

<<… that explains why so many dysfunctional ethnicities are so prone to criminal behavior.>>

No, it doesn't. You still have those three problems I listed earlier: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332092

<<You acknowledge that genetics and behaviour are linked in individuals…>>

That, I do.

<<… then claim that genetics and behaviour [cannot] be linked in groups of individuals.>>

“More that [behaviour’s] polygenetic qualities, along with environmental factors, drown out any extent to which it would otherwise be heritable. Then there’s 'genetic variability' …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331975)

<<Different ethnicities of humans equate to sub species within the animal world …>>

Nope. Subspecies can’t always breed successfully and, unlike with races, a member of one subspecies can never be more closely related to an individual in a different subspecies than they are to another individual within their own.

Try again, LEGO.

Actually, LEGO, I will note that population genetics is slightly different to the notion of heritability of traits across large populations. The former deals more with genetic drift rather than heredity. So it’s not quite as bad as the time you attributed my pointing out that African Americans, at the rate their IQs are rising, will be smarter than whites in a few decades, if the trend continues. I’ll take that part back.

But that doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. The fact remains that the influence that environmental factors have, are far greater effect on behaviour and intelligence than they are on physical attributes, and this is what you are currently trying to skirt around. Then there’s the fact that behaviour and intelligence are controlled by a number of genes (and combinations thereof) that is far greater than the number of genes that determine individual physical attributes.

So, isolated or not, you’re still pushing poo uphill trying to claim that certain behaviours can be more pronounced in one group than they are in another because of shared genetic traits. The first of the three problems with your racial theories would be a good starting point (i.e. control for environmental factors). Next, I would suggest that you demonstrate how isolation overcomes the other two of the three factors I mentioned earlier:

1. The sheer number of genes (and combinations thereof) influencing behaviour and intelligence. and;
2. Genetic variability.

Until you’ve done the above, you have no argument. So, you see, you can distract all you like with supposed contradictions on my behalf, but, inevitably, we will always return to the flaws in your arguments.

AJ wrote

"Once again, LEGO, you fail to account for the differences in the heritability of, and the influence of environmental factors on, the physical and the behavioural."

Once again AJ, all you have is wishful thinking and unsupported statements.

AJ wrote

"No, they're the same discipline. You even provide a quote explaining just that:"

Try again. Population Genetics is a SUBFIELD of genetics. Did you innocently or deliberately write it down wrong?

AJ wrote

"Nope. Subspecies can’t always breed successfully and, unlike with races, a member of one subspecies can never be more closely related to an individual in a different subspecies than they are to another individual within their own."

You are now deliberately pretending that I am talking about cross breeds. I am not, and you know I am not. I am talking about sub-species of animals and humans. The term "sub-species" is an ethology term and is not normally used to describe human ethnicity. But sub-species by definition equates exactly with ethnicity. You know it, and I know it. Confronted by indisputable proof that group behaviour is heritable, you slyly pretend that you don't understand.

AJ wrote

"So it’s not quite as bad as the time you attributed my pointing out that African Americans, at the rate their IQs are rising, will be smarter than whites in a few decades, if the trend continues. I’ll take that part back."

Of course you will. You know you stuck your foot right in it and now you need to retract to wriggle out of it.

AJ wrote

"But that doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. The fact remains that the influence that environmental factors have, are far greater effect on behaviour and intelligence than they are on physical attributes, and this is what you are currently trying to skirt around."

That is a nice little unsupported assertion you have there. I don't know how you are going to sell that to our readers, especially since you never bother to provide a supporting argument. My oft repeated arguments can be understood by any reader who studied high school genetics

I know, LEGO.

<<Population Genetics is a SUBFIELD of genetics.>>

Read my second post.

<<You are now deliberately pretending that I am talking about cross breeds.>>

No, I didn't say anything about cross breeds.

<<I am talking about sub-species of animals and humans.>>

I know, and I've already explained why races are not subspecies. You’re a little slow.

<<But sub-species by definition equates exactly with ethnicity.>>

“Nope. Subspecies can’t always breed successfully and, unlike with races, a member of one subspecies can never be more closely related to an individual in a different subspecies than they are to another individual within their own.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332177)

<<... you slyly pretend that you don't understand.>>

Apparently not.

<<That is a nice little unsupported assertion you have there.>>

No, I've already supported it with an example:

"For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331960)

Then there's those articles you won't read:

Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability: http://goo.gl/65v7tw
How Heritability Misleads About Race: http://goo.gl/ZOU4ck
Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children: http://goo.gl/WLJ7YS
Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina: http://goo.gl/yPwG5t
Race and Intelligence: http://goo.gl/AXUhwW

You're really struggling here, aren't you LEGO.

AJ wrote

"No, I didn't say anything about cross breeds."

Of course, not. "Always imply, but when challenged, deny." You IMPLIED you were talking about sub species, but then you said that these were usually not fertile. That meant that you were talking about hybrids like mules, beefaloes, and Ligers, which are offspring from two different species. But I was not, and you knew that all along. I was talking about sub-species, which are identifiably different members of the same species. Natural selection within particular and very different environments can cause organisms from within the same species to change into identifiably different sub species. That same process of natural selection applies to all organisms, animal and human. It results in sub species which are not only physically different, but temperamentally different as well.

The fact that genetics is a significant factor in behaviour within entire groups of organisms, is a provable premise. I know you are going to find some way to sneer at that, but it makes sense to every reader of this post. You on the other hand, have no contrary argument because you refuse to post any up. That is why you are losing.

AJ wrote

"No, I've already supported it with an example: "For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same.""

Excuse me? How does this relate to your invalid claim that genetics is only a significant factor in individuals, and not within groups of individuals? Do you really think that just posting up any sort of unintelligible babble is going to impress anybody?

AJ wrote

"Then there's those articles you won't read"

I am winning because I have done my homework and I can submit arguments which make sense, and which cross connect with each other to make even more sense. You want me to do your homework for you and then argue against my own premises. Like hell I will, sunshine

No, I didn’t imply that, LEGO

<<You IMPLIED you were talking about sub species …>>

I was talking about them specifically.

<<… but then you said that these were usually not fertile.>>

I said nothing about fertility. Although, that is one possible outcome in the offspring.

<<That meant that you were talking about hybrids like mules, beefaloes, and Ligers, which are offspring from two different species.>>

No, I said nothing about hybrids. I said subspecies can have difficulty breeding together, unlike ethnicities.

<<But I was not [talking about those], and you knew that all along.>>

That, I did.

<<I was talking about sub-species …>>

Correct.

The rest of what you have said about subspecies is correct. You just stuffed up at the point where you tried to make it look like I was conflating species with subspecies by introducing the notion of hybrids.

<<Excuse me? How does this relate to your invalid claim that genetics is only a significant factor in individuals, and not within groups of individuals?>>

You’re excused, and I haven’t said that. Once again, I was referring to heritability when discussing groups.

<<I am winning because I have done my homework and I can submit arguments which make sense ….>>

Yes, LEGO, the only one here who has committed a fallacy (fifteen of them, in fact, some of them multiple times) and has had to misrepresent what the other has said in order to formulate an argument, is “winning”

That’s adorable. Just keep telling yourself that.

And no, all you have posted is a bunch of oversimplifications that still have those problems you won’t address.

<<You want me to do your homework for you and then argue against my own premises.>>

You must have a lot of confidence in the articles' ability to convince if you think they’ll get you arguing against your own position. No wonder you’re too afraid to read them, given how desperately you need to maintain your position.

We couldn’t find out that we had spent most of our lives being wrong now, could we?

AJ wrote

"No, I said nothing about hybrids. I said subspecies can have difficulty breeding together, unlike ethnicities."

Could you post up your source that says that Cape Buffaloes "have difficulty" breeding with other African Buffaloes? Or that Grizzly Bears "have difficulty" breeding with other Brown Bears? Or that Siberian Tigers, or Sumatran Tigers, "have difficulty" breeding with other tigers, or for that matter, each other?

Sub-species are simply members of a species which have evolved in isolation to develop environment specific traits that set them apart in terms of appearance and behaviour from others within their own species. But they are still capable of breeding within their species and creating fertile offspring. Animal sub-species equate exactly with human ethnicities, and though you will never admit that because it proves you are wrong, anyone who has any idea of high school genetics can see it quite clearly.

AJ wrote

"You’re excused, and I haven’t said that. Once again, I was referring to heritability when discussing groups."

But what you wrote was unintelligible babble. You claim that genetics is a significant factor in individual human behaviour, but claim that genetics is "drowned out" into insignificance with individuals within groups. But you can not submit a reasoned argument that displays how that could happen. Instead you write complete blather and somehow think that it impresses us. it doesn't.

OK, so now I have once again showed how your premise is wrong. Now I am going to submit another reasoned argument. One which proves once again that behaviour within groups is heritable. Pacific Islanders are renowned for their low intellects. Anyone who is reading this and who has socialised with Pacific Islanders knows it to be true. And you don't even need an IQ test to confirm it's validity. It is obviously an ethnicity specific problem. They all have low intelligence, and the entire ethnicity pass that low IQ trait along to their kids. The low heritable IQ's of Pacific Islanders results them being notorious within western countries for their very disproportionate levels of welfare dependency and their high levels of criminal behaviour.