SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[Fuji]

NDD - I notice you have posted in reply to several posts after my disproval of a point made earlier today by you.

Any reply? Or am I to infer that you are a cowardly fool? Or a foolish coward? Whatever.

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by Fuji

NDD - I notice you have posted in reply to several posts after my disproval of a point made earlier today by you.

This is, of course, SOP for him. Ignore what you can't bluff past.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

I've answered your questions.

No you haven't, and in fact you are weaseling.

First you (incorrectly) claimed that according to the article, controlling for environmental influences explained all of the observed differences in academic achievement between African Americans and whites.

When pressed for support, you limited your claim to "all the occasions where they had concurrent measurements of those factors"

Of course there's nothing necessarily wrong with changing one's position, but it's dishonest for you to do so while pretending that your position hasn't changed.

I do not engage with people who weasel or who refuse to answer questions which would let me clarify their position such as it is.

Goodbye, liar.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

I've answered this at least twice, maybe three times. Enough dancing. For someone who demands answers to his questions, you sure are a hypocrit when it comes to the obverse.

I demand answers for questions about peoples' positions. If somebody made their credentials an issue in the discussion, for example by asserting that their position is stronger because of their credentials (or somebody else's position is weaker because of his credentials) then it's reasonable to question them on the subject.

I have never asserted that my credentials give my position extra credibility. However, to put this issue to rest, I will state that I have no more credentials besides the advanced statistics coursework I mentioned earlier, i.e. 4 or 5 advanced statistics classes.

Now please answer my questions:

1. Please link to the post where you lay out your own credentials. This is reasonable since you have demanded that I go beyond simply referring to my earlier posts in general and since you have made your credentials an issue in this discussion.

2. With respect to the conclusion you were referring to, where (if anywhere) in the linked article does it appear? Please quote it.

3. Do you agree that in the linked article, the authors observe a gap between blacks and whites which is not explained by the factors they cite? If you agree, do you think their observation is an anomaly? And if not, what do you think the reason is for that gap?

4. Do you believe you are qualified to decide which experts' conclusions are superior?

Is that how you prefer to remember that exchange? Well, hell, I guess your point is that credentials and advanced training in the sciences are entirely irrlevent in this conversation.

The point is that you are suffering from overconfidence.

confidently asserting the extremely minority position

I'm extremely skeptical of this claim. Please show proof that my position is in an "extreme minority."

refusing to be educated by those who know much more than I

What's your basis for claiming that my knowledge is inferior? Is it simply that my conclusion is one you disagree with?

If you are not familiar with Linda Gottfredson, then perhaps your knowledge in this area is not quite as extensive as you think.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by straight man

Precisely what was your justification for thinking that genetic predispositions would have a greater effect on older people than younger?

What I have read on the internet about the subject.

For example:

Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9.[5] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[6]

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

Although common sense suggests that environmental influences increasingly account for individual differences in behavior as experiences accumulate during the course of life, this hypothesis has not previously been tested, in part because of the large sample sizes needed for an adequately powered analysis. Here we show for general cognitive ability that, to the
contrary, genetic influence increases with age.

ETA: my bolding.

http://ctglab.nl/papers/2010/Haworth_MP2010_h2IQ.pdf

The opposite is more plausible, since there's less time for environment to have affected you when you're young,

I agree, it's counter-intuitive. One hypothesis is that as children grow, they have more control over their own environment and smarter children tend to choose more stimulating environments.

and I don't remember you showing us any citation to the contrary.

Well now I have. And if you have citations which show otherwise, I'm happy to look at them.

[Truman Burbank]

I don't have for every piece of crap you fling at the wall. I posted my credentials in this thread in posts #241 and 1733. You and NDD have remarked that the reason research doesn't support your position is because scientists refrain from concluding 'the real truth' due to fears of political correctness, or some such hogwash, I consider within that observation is an aknowlegement that the published research vastly supports the 'not genetic' over the 'obviously genetic'. You've been given reams of cites already.
"What's your basis for claiming that my knowledge is inferior?" You've taken statistics, yet dismissed advanced degrees in Psych, and others in this thread with significant credentials in other relevent disciplines, such as genetics (and no, I'm not going to wade through the thread for the exact cites. You know you have, or you lie).

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

I don't have for every piece of crap you fling at the wall.

I have no idea what your point is here.

I posted my credentials in this thread in posts #241 and 1733.

Thank you. It seems that your qualifications are inferior to those of some researchers who are (apparently) on the opposite side of the debate from you.

You and NDD have remarked that the reason research doesn't support your position is because scientists refrain from concluding 'the real truth' due to fears of political correctness, or some such hogwash,

I have not made such a point. I would ask you not to strawman me, but this is the last post in which I will be responding to you anyway so it doesn't really matter.

I asked you a few simple questions which would help clarify your position, and you ignored them.

I have no interest in engaging with such a person. Goodbye.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Goodbye, liar.

[takes a drink]

[Vinyl Turnip]

We hate to see you go, brazzy, but we love to watch you leave!

[gamerunknown]

Jensen and Rushton could also count as "specialists in mental testing". I don't know of anyone under the age of 30 espousing a genetic view of intelligence though.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Goodbye, liar.

Oh noes! Does this mean I no longer get to play "You must respond to my series of questions forms from increasingly tortorously and selectively reconstructed bits of somebody else's cite?"

And I was having such fun spending my time on that.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

[takes a drink]

A drinking game? That could result in message board induced alcoholism under the circumstances...although admittedly that might make this thread less painful.

[Morgenstern]

I'm still holding my breath, did Brazil really leave?

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I'm still holding my breath, did Brazil really leave?

I fear not. He just added another couple of toy bricks to his sandbox wall.

Beebs prefers the "I'm crushing your head!" method of debate.

[Who_me?]

He's not leaving, he's just putting people who refuse to play his ridiculous games with him on his imaginary ignore list. When he has no rebuttal for someone else's evidence, he asks for explanations and tries to nitpick the information to death. When he can't, he put them on his list so he can dismiss the evidence altogether. He's a cowardly liar who claims his view is correct and evidence supports him.

He's not worthy of an actual debate because he moves goalposts, ignores evidence, and asks questions that have no relevance to the evidence presented. Like all nutcases, he's a fool who dismisses evidence as a coverup of the truth.

[andros]

And he's been doing it for five years, and people keep falling for it.

[Who_me?]

Originally Posted by andros

And he's been doing it for five years, and people keep falling for it.

But it's fun after you give up trying and start ridiculing him. Even though I'm on his "ignore list" I know he still sees what I post and he can't rebut it without admitting that he read my post.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I'm still holding my breath, did Brazil really leave?

No, sorry to disappoint you, I just put Truman Burbank on my ignore list.

By the way, did you know that the heritability of IQ increases with age?

[Truman Burbank]

And the missing word was 'time', as in "I don't have TIME for every piece of crap you fling".
Andros, I don't think I 'fell for' anything, I've learned a lot in this thread about subjects from genetics to history. Not time wasted at all. I had no illusion after the first page or two that Brazil could learn anything, time wasted for him, I'd think.
I note he couldn't call me a 'liar' when he wished me away. Does this mean....
I WIN?

[Ramira]

I must insist, it is 84

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by brazil84

No, sorry to disappoint you, I just put Truman Burbank on my ignore list.

How many are on your ignore list now?

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

How many are on your ignore list now?

Everyone except NDD. Soon they will turn on each other, and then Brazil84 will be reduced to demanding irrelevant cites from himself. The real question is what happens when Brazil84 realizes that Brazil84 is a liar.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

How many are on your ignore list now?

I don't know. Why do you want to have a meta-discussion?

By the way, did you know that heritability of IQ increases with age?

[LeeshaJoy]

Originally Posted by brazil84

By the way, did you know that heritability of IQ increases with age?

Cite?

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Yes, of course. I have no interest in engaging with people who refuse to answer reasonable questions about their position.



It's certainly possible. If you do not wish to engage with me, you are of course free to put me on ignore.

Never happen. It's a little too childish for my liking. Also, I like to see what the lunatic fringe is up to. Know thine enemy as yourself and all that.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I don't know. Why do you want to have a meta-discussion?

By the way, did you know that heritability of IQ increases with age?

George: A Boob for all seasons.
Paul: How can he lose?
John: Were your notices good?
[brazil84] Jeremy (Nowhere man): It's my policy never to read my reviews!

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I don't know. Why do you want to have a meta-discussion?

Heh. I wish I owned the mineral rights to irony like this.

[Ibn Warraq]

I think the question is no longer who is on Brazzy's banned list but who isn't.

[Truman Burbank]

It is certainly being in good company. Soon, he'll notice that his posts are going unchallenged, and declare "Victory!"

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by clairobscur

At the contrary, it's one of the most controversial topic. I'm fascinated by Neanderthals, have read quite a lot about them, and paleontologists definitely have widely divergent opinions about Neanderthals' intelligence, creativity, ability to speak, etc....

Time Science Thursday, May 06, 2010

A decade after scientists first cracked the human genome, researchers announced in the May 7 issue of Science that they have done the same for Neanderthals, the species of hominid that existed from roughly 400,000 to 30,000 years ago, when their closest relatives, early modern humans, may have driven them to extinction...

The genetic information turned up some intriguing findings, indicating, for instance, that at some point after early modern humans migrated out of Africa, they mingled and mated with Neanderthals, possibly in the Middle East or North Africa as much as 80,000 years ago...

Comparisons with DNA from modern humans show that some Neanderthal DNA has survived to the present.
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...987568,00.html

[GIGObuster]

And now another boob just trolled many in GD,

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=657074

Remember guys, they are spewing racist points, the posters are not important or even deserve any attention (I already expressed my opinion regarding the inadequate rules in GD, boobs like him are indeed racists, but the rules are still there that say that it is the ideas and the sources that they bring the only ones that we can denounce as racist).

Always concentrate on the sources they cite outside the pit.

[Morgenstern]

Like we need another thread on race and racism.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=657103

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

How many are on your ignore list now?

Ironically, as this thread grows longer for all of us, for braz it steadily shrinks as more and more posters are ignored. Soon, on his screen, it'll be just him and NDD, and soon after that, just him.

[Truman Burbank]

Originally Posted by Ramira

I must insist, it is 84

Fitting as it is.

[Evil Economist]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Like we need another thread on race and racism.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=657103

We need to start banning some of these fuckers before this becomes the next SF. NDD has demonstrated that he's not intelligent enough to be on a board devoted to fighting ignorance, and Brazil84 has admitted that he has mental problems that prevent him from incorporating new evidence into his worldview, so it seems pointless to allow him to continue posting to GD.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Ironically, as this thread grows longer for all of us, for braz it steadily shrinks as more and more posters are ignored. Soon, on his screen, it'll be just him and NDD, and soon after that, just him.

Except he doesn't actually put anyone on his real ignore list(the one SDMP provides us all) but only on his imaginary one.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I have not found reliable statistics of how the end of Apartheid effected the murder rate in South Africa.

It's been steadily declining since the consolidation of Black rule. Down by 50% since the end of Apartheid. I realise this must be disappointing for you.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

It's been steadily declining since the consolidation of Black rule. Down by 50% since the end of Apartheid. I realise this must be disappointing for you.

It is not disappointing to me at all. I would appreciate if you could substantiate that with a link to a credible source, like an UN agency or something like that.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by LeeshaJoy

Cite?

See the links I posted in Post #3099.

I take it you decline to answer the questions I asked you earlier?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Except he doesn't actually put anyone on his real ignore list(the one SDMP provides us all) but only on his imaginary one.

Well, let's test that:


Hey, brazil84, a Nigerian prince needs your help to transfer money out of his country and will reward you handsomely....


No, wait...


Hey, brazil84, a Scandinavian prince needs your help to transfer money out of his country and will reward you handsomely....




And now we play the waiting game....


And when that gets boring, we play Hungry Hungry Hippos.

[Truman Burbank]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Except he doesn't actually put anyone on his real ignore list(the one SDMP provides us all) but only on his imaginary one.

I'm pretty sure he saw the "It's a Good Life" episode of Twilight Zone and mistook it for a documentary...

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Evil Economist

We need to start banning some of these fuckers before this becomes the next SF. NDD has demonstrated that he's not intelligent enough to be on a board devoted to fighting ignorance, and Brazil84 has admitted that he has mental problems that prevent him from incorporating new evidence into his worldview, so it seems pointless to allow him to continue posting to GD.

So you would have us 86 84?

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

It is not disappointing to me at all. I would appreciate if you could substantiate that with a link to a credible source, like an UN agency or something like that.

Except that you have consistently demonstrated an inability to recognize credible sources, and an inability in differentiating them from non-credible sources, so what would be the point?

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

It is not disappointing to me at all. I would appreciate if you could substantiate that with a link to a credible source, like an UN agency or something like that.

This is the last time I post in this thread:
there's a link to the source you want in your own fucking cite, you brain-dead racist cocktwat.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Fuji

Your answer over my head? HA! You can't even see past my kneecaps, let alone lodge an argument above my head, you demented asswipe.

No, you didn't answer his arguments. He noted that the demographic breakdown of Honduras showed that its population was about 90% white or mestizo, whereas only about 7% is indigenous Amerinidian and 2% black, and asked how (by implication, given your racist horseshit theories) this could be so.

Your vulgarity discredits what you say, and ought to embarrass civil people who agree with you, or who at least pretend to.

Mestizos are a hybrid race of whites and American Indians. Honduras gets its high murder rate from a number of factors including the American Indian ancestry of the mestizos. Countries where nearly everyone is white or Oriental nearly always have low murder rates because whites and Orientals are at five to ten thousand years away from a paleolithic way of life. The only white country I am aware of with a high murder rate is Russia. The only Oriental country is North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Race is not the only factor influencing a country's murder rate, but it seems to be the most important.

[Truman Burbank]

...and he couldn't even respond intelligently to "what does 'correlation does not indicate causation?' " mean.
Hey genius, what's Jefferson's estimated IQ today?

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

. . .l

Race is not the only factor influencing a country's murder rate, but it seems to be the most important.

You mean like that dude with the mustache and the shiny black boots?

[Truman Burbank]

Originally Posted by olivesmarch4th

I'm not sure who that is.

It's just more Chinatown...

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

This is the last time I post in this thread:
there's a link to the source you want in your own fucking cite, you brain-dead racist cocktwat.

I could respond in kind, but I decline to.

My post says that from 2000 to 2009 the murder rate in South Africa declined from 50 per 100,000 inhabitants to 34. That is an impressive decline while leaving South Africa with a horrendous murder rate. What I have been trying to find out is what the murder rate was like before the end of apartheid in 1994.

---------

A survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita in a data set of 60 countries.[4] Total crime per capita was 10th out of the 60 countries in the dataset.
The United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute have also conducted research[5] on the victims of crime which shows the picture of South African crime as more typical of a developing country...

Around 50 people are murdered in South Africa each day.[6] The murder rate has increased by an order of magnitude in South Africa during the last 40 years...

According to a survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the UN, South Africa was ranked first for rapes per capita.[15] The incidence of rape has led to the country being referred to as the "rape capital of the world".[16] One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[17] More than 25 per cent of South African men questioned in a survey published by the Medical Research Council (MRC) in June 2009 admitted to rape; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person.[18][19] Three out of four of those who had admitted rape indicated that they had attacked for the first time during their teens.[18] South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world...

Since apartheid rule ended in 1994 and Nelson Mandela and the ANC were voted into government, over 3000 white farmers have been murdered on their farms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa

Tell me MrDibble, have you ever raped anyone?

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

You mean like that dude with the mustache and the shiny black boots?

I am talking about violent street crime. Germany has one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate