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.