I posted links to two articles about studies and simply quoted from the articles. You are not calling me stupid, you are calling those articles stupid. What is it with you guys thinking everyone that doesn’t agree with you is stupid? What kind of way to go through life is that, holding so many people you don’t know in such contempt. Are you saying that Humans are not, in fact, 99.9% genetically similar with each other then? You are calling that scientific fact ‘completely stupid’? That’s the only thing I said, which was backed up by my cites. So you can kindly shove your condescension up your ass too.
What fucking argument did I make asshole? I cited a scientific fact from an article, period. Take it up with the goddamn article then.
By the way, just calling someone stupid is not an argument at all shithead. Its essentially “I know you are but what am I?” for message boards.
No, that’s not what you did. You linked to some articles but you also tried to develop implications from the facts in those articles to the current discussion.
As long as you limit yourself to links you’re sort-of OK. It’s when go out on your own in creating inferences from those facts that you run into trouble.
[BTW and FWIW, I didn’t say you were stupid. I said your argument was stupid.]
So, you think the basis of his entire fucking argument deserves “skepticism” yet he is not displaying ignorance or intellectual dishonesty? How does that work?
A person can be wrong about something without being ignorant or dishonest. He can also be right with being ignorant and dishonest. ISTM that CP falls into the first category.
FWIW, I think most of his opponents are motivated by “good” intentions, in fighting the spread of ideas that are associated with, and which can contribute to, bigotry. But sometimes this type of good intentions leads people to go over the line, and to take things past where their knowledge of the facts, or logic, would ordinarily take them.
You can’t be wrong about the thing you are arguing and not be ignorant. That’s what ignorance is.
Ultimately everything boils down to judgment. You’re ignorant if you don’t have command of the facts. If you make a wrong judgment that doesn’t make you ignorant.
In this case, there have been many measurements that have shown differences in so-called intelligence between various ethnic groups, some with attempts at ruling out other factors. If that enough to say that other factors can be ruled out? CP thinks yes. I think no. Doesn’t make him ignorant.
The “facts” include being right. That’s what facts are. The factors in the tests are facts. Cultural impacts are facts.
You’re saying other people are ignorant but he’s not and you are saying his facts are wrong. Does not compute.
ETA: You also said his opponents have good intentions. Sorry “good” intentions. Since you’re judging intentions, what are his?
I disagree with this.
True. But those are not being disputed. What’s being disputed is whether they can be ruled out as accounting for all the observed differences. Those are not facts.
To be clear, I’m not saying that everyone arguing against him is ignorant. I’m saying most of the ignorance is coming from the other side. Because as above, people who are ignorant and on this basis might ordinarily refrain from making vehement pronouncements and declarations and putting forth arguments and so on, are emboldened by the righteousness of their cause and the fact that the’re part of a mob.
No idea. I suppose you’re trying to imply that he’s a raging bigot, and that’s possible. But he’s also called for more affirmative action on the basis of these beliefs and has not othewise seemed like a raging bigot. Although it could be that it’s all part of a devious act. In sum: no idea.
Of course they are facts. And if you look at the data and draw the wrong conclusion, you are ignorant.
I find it interesting that you are ascribing motivations to only one side of the debate. Why do you think that is?
I’m ascribing motivations for the ignorance and dishonesty in these debates. Happens to be it’s coming mostly from one side.
Actually, you can’t identify dishonesty without identifying the mental state.
And again, you are saying one said is right but ignorant and the other side is wrong but not ignorant. That doesn’t actually work. We’re talking about science, not philosophy.
I don’t know about that. You can see people pulling various rhetorical sleights of hand.
Again, I continue to disagree. You can be wrong about a conclusion without being ignorant of the facts. And you can make a flawed argument in favor of a correct conclusion.
[You actually do see quite a lot of that around here - people agree with a certain conclusion and also accept every single argument in favor of that conclusion as valid. But I think that’s just bias at work, and most people would agree with the premise above in theory.]
You can’t know if they are rhetorical sleights of hand without knowing the mental state.
So, on the one side you are saying “These people are ignorant but right, and they are dishonest because I say so” and on the other side “This guy is not ignorant but wrong and not dishonest because I don’t know his mental state and won’t even guess.”
I find that really interesting and, of itself, intellectually dishonest. Of course, I recognize your name as someone who appears to take perverse pleasure in simply being contrarian. Being contrarian is something I have no real issue with. Being contrarian for its own sake is a waste of time, energy, and good will, and is its own form of dishonesty.
OK.
I think what I’ve said stands, and don’t have anything further to add at this time.
Interesting to note that we do know that one side of this discussion has a very long history of committing scientific errors and inventing “data,” not to mention advocating or lending support to all sorts of bigotry. It’s not the “everybody’s pretty much the same” side. As long as we’re discussing the reasons: as far as I can tell Chief Pedant is an earnest racist and Fotheringay-Phipps is just dicking around to annoy people.
That’s the impression I have as well.
I try to avoid calling people racists for many reasons – chiefly because it seems to imply knowledge of motives.
But I have no problem with calling statements and claims racist. And Chief Pedant (and others) have certainly made racist claims – most notably, variations on the claim “black people are inherently genetically less intelligent, on average, than white people”.
There’s no way for that not to be a racist claim. It’s pretty much the purest form of racist statement. And considering that we have no evidence of any kind about the genes for intelligence, much less their prevalence in various populations, it’s also an extremely foolish claim.
Any claims that ‘just so happen’ to match exactly what the worst people on earth said a hundred years ago about race should be avoided, unless one happens to have ironclad evidence. Those who make claims about the genetics of intelligence for black people have absolutely no evidence whatsoever about the genes for intelligence. And yet they’re not dissuaded.
So the claim is racist. And that might be the best thing we can say about the claim!
This is amazing.
All Capsin’ it:
NO, I HAVE NEVER DONE ANY OF THOSE THINGS, AND MANY, MANY, MANY OTHER PEOPLE ALSO HAVE NOT DONE ANY OF THESE THINGS!!!
You must realize, you MUST realize, that you are not representative. Your feelings are not normative. Your reactions on these topics are bad reactions that are not shared by the rest of us.
So, he’s just being a jerk?