What I have highlighted is an example of the guilt by association fallacy.
Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of “reasoning” is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor “reasoning”: “You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn’t believe it.”
I will not defend myself against the charge of being a racist because I believe that for too long the fear of being called a racist had inhibited a candid, and public discussion of serious social problems. Nevertheless, I do not believe that what I am racially - a white Gentile of north eastern European descent - is racial superior to Orientals and Ashkenazic Jews.
Pointing out that a statement is consistent with racist statements from identifiable sources is permitted. So, up to the point where you ask whether the other poster is a racist, your statements would be permitted.
I disagree with the claim that it is a “political term” as though that separates it from its insulting characteristics. It is always insulting and it is always intended as an insult.
The first four terms you mentioned are neutral descriptive terms, (aside from the weight that some people personally give them), that might be employed by posters regarding themselves. On the other hand, “attention whore” is a judgement call with a negative association that would also not be permitted in Great Debates when directed at another poster.
The rule against insults against other posters is not intended to make GD appear to be a forum of all sweetness and light; we do permit insults against people who are not posting. It is intended to avoid having a thread in which posters wish to actually discuss the concepts involved be derailed by posters who are simply engaged in name calling of the “you’re a poopyhead” variety using harsher language.
As I already pointed out: I am pretty sure that if we sifted through all of your posts, we could find positions that other posters found absurd or ludicrous or contemptible. We are not going to allow those posters to call you names, in GD, and we will not allow you to get away with such behavior either.
Hmm? Which is it? You are a racist – the views you continue to espouse, aside from being scientifically indefensible (as you have shown via your total failure at attempting to defend them in this thread) are textbook racism.
So, at least own it. I mean, stand up, and admit that you are a racist. You’re saying racist things, consistently, over and over. You may as well admit that holding racist views makes you, in fact, a racist. That doesn’t mean your views are false (we come to that conclusion, again, by way of your total inability to defend them). Regardless of their veracity, though, they are in fact racist views, making you a racist.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
By the following definition I am not a racist. I do not believe that race accounts for differences in human character and ability. I believe that genes are primarily responsible, although I also believe that these genes vary among the races, and cause different averages in intelligence and crime rates.
Moreover, I do not believe that every member of one race is more worthy than every member of another race.
Finally, I am opposed to discrimination on the basis of race, but I am in favor of discrimination on the basis of what correlates with race, such as intellectual performance and felony convictions, when that discrimination is relevant.
Actually, in the sentence where your highlighting occurs, there is no fallacy. Simply pointing out that one’s statements are consistent with specific beliefs held by specific individuals does not engage in fallacy.
Pointing out that connection might be a salutary wake-up call to a person who was simply repeating something he or she had “always heard” and the provenance of which were unaware. Drawing a conclusion from such a statement might tend closer to engaging in fallacy, or it might simply be shorthand to point out that the idea is silly.
Your 1+1=2 example, is silly, since it is a concept shared by all people. Noting that somoene’s argument is identical to that of a known Conspiracy theorist and is held only by people favoring that Conspiracy Theory, however, provides the person addressed with the opportunity to demonstrate why their version is based on better logic than that of the CT nutcases, (or to declare their adherence to the same lack of facts and logic, obviating the need to refute the same nonsense for the thousandth time).
It’s only insulting because it’s unpopular to be racist. The word itself is not a slur, though.
Racism is an ideology. So is socialism, facism, libertarism, and capitalist. If a poster repeatedly expresses ideas that government is bad and needs to be overthrown whereever it arises, guess what? This poster is an arnachist. If a poster espouses that races differ one another based on innate abilities, guess what? This poster is a racist. It’s not that complicated.
If they have a problem with being called a racist, when their ideas indeed match up word for word with racism, they need to ask themselves why they have a problem with being called a racist. Being in denial about it is stupid. And encouraging that denial by dancing around the right adjectives is ten times as stupid. This is what this board perpetuates on a daily basis.
In many quarters, it’s unpopular to be gay. But that doesn’t mean “gay” is always a pejorative. Let’s be grown ups and embrace the English language.
Just as many on the right call those on the left “socialist,” “Communist,” and/or “Marxist,” so many on the left think they win an argument by calling someone a “racist.”
It does not matter is a statement is “racist.” What matters is whether it is true or not. The Bell Curve is not disproved by a book Stephen J. Gould wrote about it. It will be disproved when blacks perform and behave as well as whites.
The comments of the people on here suggest that there is a consensus that average race differences in intelligence are nonsense. In fact, only 15% of the 661 surveyed considered group or race differences in intelligence to be due to environmental factors alone. So some people here need to revisit their priors.
I would recommend that you actually read some recent papers before saying people are ‘crackpots’. The June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2 is a good starting point.
Then what is this “skill” that I hear so much about that blacks do not have?
That even the people in one of the books mentioned it could be from 40% and up. As the discussion in Nature showed, not many agree with this.
Nope, no superiority here, no siree.
Except when you say so.
Thinking that the exudation of your biases would make them ok is really silly.
I could say here that the solution you offer is useless and divisive, it does not matter what race you are, a criminal needs to be punished, but I have seen research that shows that the same crimes have different levels of punishment and incarceration rates for white people compared to blacks and other minorities, whites benefit more from that inequality.
Well, we know that they exist and that is the current state of affairs, to claim that your ideas are based on science you are stretching what even the experts agree with.
Having read both books, I can safely say that yes, Gould’s book did in fact disprove the Bell Curve. It’s a remarkably well-written book; one that a fucking flautist like you is doubtless incapable of appreciating.
It is not the research that reports IQ differences that I have a problem with, it is with the racists that use that research and employ it to propose solutions and platitudes that are not even supported by those researchers.
Genes supposedly determine race, so you’re not saying anything useful by drawing a distinction between genes and race here.
But why make defenses based on lousy loophole-based logic, anyway? I mean, to sit up here and say you don’t believe in discrimination based on race but rather “discrimination on the basis of what correlates with race” is a phenomenally cowardly attempt to dodge the “racist” label, don’t you think? (The last clause is rhetorical.)
It’s funny though, so keep up the entertainment. To think that a grown man could be so afraid of being called a racist that he posts this kind of crap is fucking hilarious to me.
What I have said is that I do not care if anyone calls me a racist or not because I think the category lacks merit. I see myself as a genetic determinist. During the women’s liberation movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a slogan, “Biology is not a woman’s destiny.” I believe biology is everyone’s destiny. It determines what we want to do, and what we are able to do.
Just because Gould’s book tells you what you want to believe does not mean that it disproves The Bell Curve. Gould cannot explain why everywhere in the world and always throughout history blacks have been characterized by inferior intelligence. Charles Murray can and does. The assertions of The Bell Curve are not counter intuitive. Charles Murray explains what nearly everyone knows to be true, and his explanations are plausible.