…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.