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.