Hi Jack the Lad. Yes mate, you see the anti racists have no problem with anybody saying that the Chinese are good workers, but they do have a problem with anybody saying that Chinese are prone to gambling addictions. The rule of thumb is that positive stereotypes are OK, but negative stereotypes are racism. In other words, you may say nice things about races but not bad ones.

To Dnicholson/wizofaust.

If you accept that intelligence levels may not be equal among races then there is hope for you yet. It also makes you just as racist as I am.

A person’s level of intelligence is usually a major consideration in whether or not they hold “superior” positions in the pecking order. Every civilization has recognized the concept of high intelligence and valued it. IQ and SAT tests are still the only reliable guide to a person’s intelligence level and types of intelligence (also called “talents”) which an individual may have. They are also a reliable guide to future success of any individual.

On the subject of Asian’s being more intelligent than whites, I accept that. My purpose is not to promote white supremacy, it is to appraise an impartial examination of known facts and make reasonable assumptions from that knowledge.

Getting back to the topic under discussion (priveleged whites), the author of this article seems outraged that white people prefer their own kith and kin. I thought that was a cultural universal?

No, redneck, a racist is someone that assumes that between a black and a white man, the black man is "less intelligent", and therefore less capable of contributing towards society. Or that because someone is Sudanese, they will have trouble integrating into Australian society.

Your view that "intelligence" is a single factor that strongly determines their position in society is one that I emphatically disagree with. In America 50 years ago there were no black doctors, lawyers, professors, CEOs, secretaries of state, presidential candidates, etc. etc. 50 years ago people assumed blacks were genetically incapable of performing such roles. The fact that they were unable to reach these positions of status was entirely because "the system" was dead-set against them doing so. The fact that even today they are underrepresented in certain prestigious professions is just as likely to be indicative of the remnants of inherent racism in the system, or other cultural disadvantages, as it to be some genetic limitation of blacks. In another 50 years' time when the barriers have all but disintegrated, I am quite willing to wager that blacks will be well represented in most major "high-status" professions.

I would accept that there may well always be more white or Asian Einstein-like geniuses than black ones, but Einstein would have been a hopeless president, lousy CEO, and probably not a very good doctor (he certainy wasn't much of a father). "Intelligence" as measured by IQ tests is a much overrated factor - indeed, more than once, I've found myself wishing I could trade in a few IQ points for some abilities that would help me far more in living a successful, fulfilled life!

"Ginx,

I attempted to answer your nonsensical questions only to be told that I had "lost it".

I responded to that post only to have that response ignored and your insult repeated.

How much longer do you intend to persist with this harassment?"
Posted by daggett, Thursday, 25 October 2007 9:55:19 PM
__________________

HARASSMENT!! What IS the matter with you?

YOU wrote some pretty interesting stuff which I agreed with and indicated support for you.
YOU had a shot at someone because they addressed you by your real name which you put up on the site. It was NOT a crime to address you thus.
YOU chose to display a surprising sensitivity over it.
YOU chose to defend 'other identities' posting 'on behalf' of yourself. For someone of your capabilities it was a ludicrous exercise!
YOU choose to dummy spit repeatedly after this nonsense.
YOU; YOU, James set it in motion!

Now you cry foul!!

That is absurd.

Ginx,

You wrote: "YOU had a shot at someone because they addressed you by your real name ..."

Had a shot?

This is what I wrote: "Whilst it is clear that means exist to find out the identities of myself and other posters to his forum for anyone curious enough, could I suggest to you that it would be more polite to respect the anonymity of another poster to this forum if he/she chooses to remain anonymous within the context of that forum?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96165)

Please tell me how you were able to construe this as 'having a shot'? Do you think I was meaning to be sarcastic?

As other contributors, including yourself, are able to enjoy total anonymity, I thought it was reasonable to request that I be allowed a degree of anonymity.

But, obviously I made a mistake in assuming that CJ Morgan would agree.

Clearly nothing I say or do will cause CJ Morgan or yourself, to concede that I have been acting with honest intentions in this debate.

I will just have to hope that other OLO users will be able to make sense of this mess.

---

CJ Morgan's response to Shockadelic's post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#97425) shows him to be incapable or unwilling to honestly take on board logical and insightful points in this debate. It is as if he is only here to barrack for a particular point of view which would suffer if debate were to go ahead unmolested.

A world becomes as much English as rapidly downgrading services in Australia are.

Of course, if talking of medicine and transport, for instance, not of a prison-style “human” assisting.

Shockadelic: "Don't we have the right to be boring and dumb?"

CJ Morgan: "Yes you do, old mate - and let me be the first to say you exercise your right in exemplary fashion."

Wow, none of us say that one coming!

You are so clever and original, CJ.
Such a predictable response wouldn't be "boring and dumb", by any chance?

And thanks for predictably ignoring the points I made.
Is badmouthing other people your official occupation?

Shockadelic: "No such 'one world' has ever existed".

Q&A: "Depends on the context Shockadelic".

And the context *here* was a discussion of immigration and it's cultural component I believe.
Not planetary geography.

And thanks for predictably ignoring the points I made.