Once again, a pitting of our local pseudo-scientific racialists

[Gagundathar]

@brazil84

That’s wrong, but you are weaseling. Your claim was that “Your supporting cites have all failed to provide solid evidence for a genetic trait . . . .” Ironically you are unable to back up your own claim.

Nonsense, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that’s all true. It doesn’t affect my argument at all.

If that were the case, you would not leap to conclusions about my motivations based on your own “anecdotal” observations regarding race.

What area of science are you in? Do you work for a university? A lab? What did you get your PhD in, where, and when?

Given your weaseling, it’s not entirely clear what your position is. I do understand that you think I have bad motivations and that I am a bad person. My response is – so what? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I am a bad person with bad motivations. It doesn’t undermine the actual evidence underlying my position.

It depends on what your criteria are for winning. To my mind, if an opponent is unable or unwilling to have his position pinned down and scrutinized, then I have won. To my mind, if an opponent is unwilling or unable to lay out the principles behind his reasoning and then apply those same principles to other situations, then I have won.

Thank you for your suggestion, however I will continue to post here. You are of course free to ignore my posts.

I need not support my claims as you do so quite well for me on your own.
You are quite pathetic and held in wide disdain by many who are your ethical and intellectual superiors on this board.

Good day, sir.

[brazil84]

@Gagundathar

I need not support my claims as you do so quite well for me on your own.

Ummm, your claim was that my “supporting cites have all failed to provide solid evidence for a genetic trait . . . .” You have failed to identify one of these “supporting cites” so that I can scrutinize your claim.

Which is unsurprising, since you obviously have no interest at all in facts or logic. Or in subjecting your position to scrutiny.

Good day, sir.

Good day, weasel.

[Bryan_Ekers]

You lost, brazil. He “banned” you first.

[Trinopus]

@Cheshire_Human

. . . And no, when I sober up, you’re not at all amusing. Still retarded, but not amusing. So I got drunk again. Now you’re amusing. Funny how that works.

Can I get a bottle of whatever you’re drinking? To me, he’s just nauseating.

[GIGObuster]

And **Gagundathar ** joins the club!

It is really amusing that the brasil nut has a list of the names of the ones that he “bans” in his blog, a blog that is just covered in cobwebs, brasil84 is the amusing kind of poster that just repels intellectual thought so much that the amusing result is that his list becomes an honor to belong to.

[brazil84]

@Cheshire_Human

Kinda like you keep putting people on your ‘ignore’ list, hmm?

No, not really. When I put someone on my ignore list, I generally do not post repeatedly in a thread to announce again and again that they are on my ignore list or otherwise respond to them. Typically, at most, I post once and I don’t engage them in any way.

And no, when I sober up, you’re not at all amusing.

So I guess you will keep responding to my posts? It is, of course, your prerogative.

[GIGObuster]

Yep, he can read minds…

[Cubsfan]

I didn’t read all pages of this thread and don’t really have a dog in this fight but I’ve always found it bizarre that people don’t react this way if you say that the majority of the best athletes in the world are black.

[Cheshire_Human]

@brazil84

No, not really. When I put someone on my ignore list, I generally do not post repeatedly in a thread to announce again and again that they are on my ignore list or otherwise respond to them. Typically, at most, I post once and I don’t engage them in any way.

Funny, then, how people keep quoting your “I do not engage with this poster” line, since you’ve never “announce[ed it] again and again”.

[John_DiFool]

Ignore me, please!

[wonky]

@Cubsfan

I didn’t read all pages of this thread and don’t really have a dog in this fight but I’ve always found it bizarre that people don’t react this way if you say that the majority of the best athletes in the world are black.

Funny, I bet they react exactly the same way.

[Shagnasty]

@Cubsfan

I didn’t read all pages of this thread and don’t really have a dog in this fight but I’ve always found it bizarre that people don’t react this way if you say that the majority of the best athletes in the world are black.

Oh some people most certainly do. We have those fights over the years. One thing that is refreshing about this thread however is that:

1. I learned few things and that caused me to moderate my stance.
2. Most rational participants acknowledged that there is a current racial gap in intellectual performance
3. Most rational participants acknowledged that it is within the realm of possibility given circumstantial evidence that there could be a genetic contribution to this phenomenon even if it is unproven or ultimately terms out not to be true at all.

That is really different from what I have witnessed in earlier threads and academic settings even a few years ago. Pointing out the current gap directly is huge taboo in most contexts.

You usually just get the ‘RACIST, GET OUT!’ call for bringing up this subject even if you make it clear isn’t about classical race at all but maybe just about different population groups and human origins. I think that is a win for everyone.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I could buy at the elite level, there may be some genetic trait that offers enough of a paper-thin advantage that separates a black athlete who can run 100m in 9.7 from a white athlete who runs it in 10.1.

This doesn’t generalize, though, to black armies defeating white ones.

[GIGObuster]

Once again **Shagnasty **the glaring omissions are that:

1. You don’t seem to care how twisted the ones that you are defending here really are.

2. They do continue to push research that even the researchers themselves advise specifically that it should not be used to advance bogus solutions.

3. You still act like a naive guy when you continue to ignore that their pit came to be thanks to their paranoia, conspiracy theories and crackpots.

4. And they also resort to politics to claim that the denial (that is only in their mind) of the problem is all just a liberal agenda, as it was shown many times, this is retarded and insulting to the scientists that are also conservatives that for sure advised Bush and others for some attempted solutions that failed for many diverse reasons.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@John_DiFool

Ignore me, please!

Add me to the list as well!

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

@GIGObuster

…a naive guy…

That sums him up in almost every facet of this argument.

[iiandyiiii]

@brazil84

No, not really. When I put someone on my ignore list, I generally do not post repeatedly in a thread to announce again and again that they are on my ignore list or otherwise respond to them.

This is hilarious, considering that he pretends to ignore me, then showed up in my thread just to tell everyone that he was ignoring me. A special kind of ignorance indeed.

That should be his tagline, actually- “brazil84, a special kind of ignorance”.

[the_diego]

I don’t even understand why anyone would try for a scientific argument. If any, it should be historical.

[brazil84]

@Cheshire_Human

Funny, then, how people keep quoting your “I do not engage with this poster” line, since you’ve never “announce[ed it] again and again”.

I’m not sure what your point is here. If you think that I have a habit of repeatedly announcing in a single thread that I do not engage with a certain poster, just say so and back it up with a couple examples. It should be easy enough to do, even if you are still drunk.

Of course I cannot stop people from quoting me and what difference does it make anyway?

[Bryan_Ekers]

It stems from the contradictory desires to take your ball and go home and declare that you obviously won the game.