Naw, if chicken blood could ward off the stupid, a drop of my blood would probably vaporize it… :eek:
And to be honest Maggy, I’d miss you.
Brazil84 doesn't get what's wrong with the claim that majorities of sub-saharan africans are retards
The “burden of proof” demanded is not at some ridiculous height. And they haven’t even come close to it at all. While I don’t reject the possibility out of hand completely, I think it’s a far weaker hypothesis than many others offered. There are just so many ways that the genetic explanation doesn’t fit the facts – as Frank Sweet notes here, and researchers Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips note here.
Forgive me if I don’t share your sympathy for the “blacks are inherently dumber” crowd. Their arguments are poor. They take it, essentially, on faith (or, as I suspect as is the case with many with similar biases, from experience of personal interactions with people of those groups).
All CP has “proven”, again and again, is that different groups have some affinities for some different genes. This says nothing about which genes, or which groups have greater likelihoods of having certain genes for high or low intelligence. He takes on faith that the disparate outcomes now (but not from 100 years ago or any other period in history) show some “true” genetic hierarchy of intelligence, when it’s pretty obvious that the same factors that gave us disparate outcomes (from different groups) in the past may well be giving us disparate outcomes now. There’s nothing special about now.
And on top of all of this, it’s just not reasonable to say that a few decades of legal equality after centuries of brutal oppression are enough to make everything and all opportunities equal. The outcomes now can’t tell us anything about genes – only genes can tell us about genes, especially when we’re talking about a quality like intelligence that may be the most complex characteristic of humans, and it’s obviously far, far more complex than things like skin color or height.
In that case it is a stupid rule. The request for a cite is prima facie evidence that the person is seriously skeptical of your claim and is at least as valid as the magic phrase “I hereby represent that I am seriously skeptical of your claim”.
It seems a bit silly on the surface, but my impression is that some people demand cites for things not because they are actually skeptical of the claim at issue, but as a rhetorical trick to distract their opponent and waste his energy; and that such people are reluctant to state “I am seriously skeptical of X” because they are afraid of looking silly by expressing skepticism about something that’s pretty obvious or they are afraid of losing face when I come back with a cite to back up my claim.
I assume this is actually a confession.
Speaking of confessions, perhaps you’d like to take this opportunity to confess to not knowing what you’re talking about, to following the herd, to throwing out accusation of “lying” and “hate speech” willy-nilly, and believing that when you throw out those accusations, that it is not incumbent upon you to substantiate them. Oh, and when you know you can’t substantiate them, to run away like a little bitch.
Magellan, do you disagree that the claim “the majority of sub-saharan africans are mentally retarded” is on-its-face ludicrous?
Wow, is that real slammer slang you’re sharing there dawg? Cool! Let me write that down for when I want to pretend I’m a tough guy.
But beyond the coolness of your style Mags, I’m getting an underlying vibe of hostility. Bubba and Deewayne ignoring you again?
I’ve been known to occassionally dispense apt relationship advice from time to time. If you guys have issues, instead of going around taking your frustrations out on other posters, let me help. You’ll be their sweet thang again in no time…
It’s sounds absurd, to say the least. But if you’ve been reading my posts, I’ve not been supporting that or any position help by brazil84.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No.
Seriously. What is the point?
Others have done this only to be treated to your tired pattern of ignore, misinterpret, misrepresent, demand more cites, ignore more cites, and then in the end it’s “Liar! Banned!(!?) I win!!!”
If, as the evidence strongly suggests, you are just trolling for the lulz, why would I want to get sucked any further into your silly game?
If, on the other hand, you genuinely are as misguided as you make yourself out to be, then I’m afraid I can’t help you. I can’t hold you by your sticky little hand and lead you to the light. You have to do the work yourself.
YOU have to go back and find one of your posts where you just might have misrepresented someone or maybe argued in bad faith, or could be considered to have behaved like a jerk on a jackass.
Try it.
.
Oh, I agree the issue is FAR from settled. I’ve zero problem with them being challenged—they should be, just as anyone should be. My problem is the jump from a racial discussion to racist.
As far as the burden proof, I’m not talking about the level necessary to convince a poster that one’s point of view is correct, but simply that it is valid. In some discussions, like those on the table now, it goes from, “I am completely unconvinced by your reasoning and sites” to you have no point whatsoever and are an asshole (and racist) for even thinking you might have one". I disagree with plenty on this board, some of it vehemently, but I don’t feel that means I can simply toggle to “you’re an asshole with zero credibility to your position”.
I don’t see that they do that at all. And why is it that you have no sympathy for them. If they are being treated badly in a debate, do you think that is fine? That because you are offended by their position that they are not due the same level of civility they bring to the table? That because of their position—which, I remind you, MAY be correct—they are less deserving of your empathy.
The level of hostility and the degree to which minds are closed is astounding. And let’s move to a slightly less contentious subject, athletic performance. Even there, where they and much, much firmer ground, they get the same attacks. I’ve been on the receiving end of the insults in some of those threads myself. It’s as if the liberal mind has been programmed to simply not entertain, or acknowledge, any differences between races other than the ones staring them in the face and they can’t deny, like skin color. Any contradictory information entered into the brain results in a “Does Not Compute, Therefore Attack” command.
You might want to look up “burden of proof”, paying particular attention to the whom it falls to.
Brazil84 is not debating. He’s repeatedly pushing discredited research, ignoring counter-arguments, and using poor logic to support a biased thesis. I have sympathy for people unfairly ganged up on by posters that disagree with their debate point. I have no sympathy for one who knowingly and repeatedly couches bigotry under the guise of science.
At what point can a person be called racist?
Because for me, a person who ascribes overwhelmingly negative traits to a sociological group based on perceived genetic differences, in accordance with a long tradition of ascribing those same negative traits to that sociological group as part of an effort to subjugate that group and deny that group equal rights, is acting in a way I feel very comfortable describing as appallingly racist.
If you don’t, under what circumstances WOULD you feel comfortable with such a description?
And no matter where you draw the line, b84 has been pulling this schtick for a few years now.
Unless it’s a knee-jerk defense of one who might share your views on a different topic (climate change?), maybe look up their posting history? Because his posts dealing with race haven’t changed much over the course of years, and it would take an obdurate assheaded moron (or a saint) to give him any more benefit of the doubt on being a recalcitrant, ignorant racist who either doesn’t argue in good faith or is simply both too stupid and too stubborn to do so.
And, to be honest, his posts on climate change aren’t much better. Even if you don’t buy into the scientific consensus, you’d be better off with a random hobo off the street for credibility.
Fine, then why don’t we just stop the next one who comes alo… oh, hi, magellan!
I can’t speak to anyone else’s tone, but when posters repeat the same discredited gobbledygook over and over again, I think it’s appropriate to respond with mockery and disdain. Some views deserved to be mocked, and some deserve to be disdained.
Obviously I don’t think I’m treating them badly, and if others are, then I either have not noticed or put it on my list of “minor injustices in the world that I don’t have the time or energy to address”.
Now this just sounds like whining. This boards is pretty solid about separating bad science from good science- and on a genetic explanation for disparate outcomes in athletics between races/ethnicities/etc, it’s just not solid right now. Yes, the outcomes at the top levels in some sports are pretty stark- but there were some strange oddities in athletics in the past, too, with different groups at the top. Jamaicans are incredibly disproportionately represented among the top sprinters… is this all genetic? At least a significant part is probably due to the Jamaican cultural obsession with the sport of sprinting… there is (probably) no genetic heritage in Jamaica that is not also found in the USA, Brazil, and various African countries.
So quit whining. Maybe there will be good science on this stuff someday, but not yet.
Dear stupid: I have no interest in your question. I am so disinterested in your question that I have no opinion on the matter. It is not possible for me to be ‘wrong’ about something that I have not expressed any opinion on. Only someone living in a completely delusional state, i.e. you could come to this conclusion.
Dear stupid: when I said “What in god’s name are you talking about little man? I assure you I’ve never disappeared as a result of you ‘calling me out’ on anything.” it was clear to anyone not living in delusional-land that I was calling you delusional as this has never happened. I can’t know why I did something that never actually happened. I’d have thought you’d have recorded such a winning moment in your blog and be able to point out this self-important pat on your back you gave yourself. Alas, not even you know what you’re talking about when it comes to events that occurred entirely in your head.
I don’t believe you.
The point is to back up your claims. Which of course you will never do since you just made them up.
No they haven’t. I would give you the chance to provide examples, but you are about to go on my shit list so it wouldn’t matter.
Sorry, it’s not my responsibility to go searching for evidence to back up your claims. That’s your responsibility.
Goodbye, liar.