# SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 29, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489 "2012-05-29T22:59:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 89
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1761 "2012-06-16T21:04:16Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Jesus, really. You don’t have to go far in any of the sciences. You can only go so far in Astronomy before you need bigger and better telescopes. If I have cancer, I’d rather have a modern oncologist than Theodoric, Barber of York. > I concede you’ve taken Stats. It furthers my disbelief that you can argue such simplistic positions regarding complicated phenomenon. In fact, if everything is so obvious, why do we need \*Advanced \*Stats? As I found before, **brazil should know better** , but it is clear that math and statistician heads are also ignored by the nut here: > **[Mathturbation](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/mathturbation/)** > > There seems to be a rash of trying to explain global warming by theories that either ignore, or flatly contradict, the science called “physics.” > [@](#): > > In fact it’s astounding how much known physics has to be ignored. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that’s no longer a matter of opinion. Sulphate aerosols cool the planet, we’ve seen it happen (from both factory emissions and volcanic eruptions), and we can model it with impressive accuracy. Solar changes have had a modest impact, and no recent trend, because solar changes have been modest, with no recent trend. \*\*And yes, Virginia, feedbacks really exist, like water-vapor feedback which is every bit as undeniable as CO2, while a notable increase in water vapor content has been observed. > \*\* > I suggest there are two motives for the proliferation of such “theories.” One is the obvious: those who have an ideological objection to holding business responsible for its actions, will bend over backwards to convince themselves global warming is not real, or it’s not caused by man, or it’s not dangerous. The other is the natural tendency for smart people to play with numbers and ideas, find interesting relationships, then persuade themselves they’ve happened on a key insight. This often requires ignoring the existing literature of climate science — otherwise you’d know how much is already known, and how little (or none) your new “pet” theory adds to understanding. > > Some (not tamino to be sure) would say this is how “crackpot” ideas are born. I have, however, decided to give a name to such theories: mathturbation. Brazil is indeed just a mathturbator. Ideology will guide his willful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1762 "2012-06-16T21:06:18Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Not everything is obvious. Duh. But it’s reasonably obvious to anyone with experience (and common sense) that men are taller than women; whites are smarter than blacks; Florida is warmer than New Hampshire; and eating fried foods makes you fat. One of these things is not like the other. It’s “reasonably obvious” to you, because you’re a racist. It was “reasonably obvious” to many in the past that the world is flat, or that the passenger pigeon could never go extinct. The facts do not support everything that is “reasonably obvious”, and do not support your ridiculous assertion that “whites are smarter than blacks”. ---
**Author:** ![IceQube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/dfb087/32.png) [@IceQube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IceQube)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1763 "2012-06-16T21:19:50Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Not everything is obvious. Duh. But it’s reasonably obvious to anyone with experience (and common sense) that men are taller than women; whites are smarter than blacks; Florida is warmer than New Hampshire; and eating fried foods makes you fat. He can’t speak anymore from his pedestal of “science” so now he’s appealing to whatever prejudices we \*might \*harbor. Pathetic. Not to mention the fact that most Dopers are too enlightened to give any credence to such prejudices. For better results, try the Stormfront forums, brazil84. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1764 "2012-06-16T21:20:06Z")
Defining ‘higher’. Whatever you’d like, within reason. “Anything requiring a sustained application of the scientific method.” “Any field of endeavor which requires the rigorous elimination of possible confounding variables.” “Any subject matter in the sciences taught at the Bachelor’s level, or beyond.” Whatever. I really didn’t have a specific definition in mind, I assumed it would be “common sense” (see how you can’t count on that so much?). The point is that you really ought to take into account history, sociology, genetics, the funding of our school system by local taxes, and have a good knowlege of the shortcomings of psych testing, and other confounding variables, rather than clinging to a simplistic interpretation not supported by the research. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1765 "2012-06-16T22:27:13Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > “Anything requiring a sustained application of the scientific method.” Ok, then in that case, your claim is as follows: **“‘simple observation’ won’t cut it if sustained application of the scientific method is required.”** Well duh. > [@](#): > > “Any field of endeavor which requires the rigorous elimination of possible confounding variables.” In that case, your claim is as follows: **“”‘simple observation’ won’t cut it in any field of endeavor which requires the rigorous elimination of possible confounding variables.** Again, duh. What you are doing is known as “begging the question.” > [@](#): > > Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. i.e. you were simply assuming that simple observation is not sufficient to reasonably conclude that whites are smarter than blacks. As opposed to offering any actual evidence or argument to the contrary. > [@](#): > > I really didn’t have a specific definition in mind, Of course not. You simply invented a phrase to aid you in your special pleading. You made a claim which sounded principled and powerful but was essentially just a tautology. > [@](#): > > The point is that you really ought to take into account history, sociology, genetics, the funding of our school system by local taxes, and have a good knowlege of the shortcomings of psych testing, and other confounding variables, rather than clinging to a simplistic interpretation not supported by the research. I’ve considered everything very carefully, including the various excuses offered by the Liberal Excuse Machine. I’m well aware of the “legacy of slavery” excuse; the “history of discrimination” excuse; the “inadequate school funding” excuse, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1766 "2012-06-16T22:39:12Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I’ve considered everything very carefully, including the various excuses offered by the Liberal Excuse Machine. I’m well aware of the “legacy of slavery” excuse; the “history of discrimination” excuse; the “inadequate school funding” excuse, and so on. Throughout history, for thousands of years, cultures and civilizations have expounded upon the superiority of their own “race”, and the inferiority of the other “races”. It was always crap then, and it’s always crap now. There’s no evidence of it. There is evidence of an achievement gap, and that’s it. And many studies show that the gap is shrinking. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1767 "2012-06-16T22:41:52Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > “Any subject matter in the sciences taught at the Bachelor’s level, or beyond.” This isn’t begging the question, but under this definition, your claim is simply wrong. For example, actuarial science is taught at the bachelor’s level or beyond. But just from simple observation one can reasonably conclude that a 50 year old man is more likely to have a heart attack than a 20 year old girl. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1768 "2012-06-16T22:43:39Z")
You want to argue semantics and then you invent something called the “Liberal Excuse Machine?” You asked a fair question: perhaps I have a log in my own eye? How would I know? I do the best I can, examine the evidence, including the credentials of those making claims of knowlege in the arena. Finally, I look at consensus and if everyone is telling me the same thing, I better consider closely whether there might be something to it. You might want to consider some of that, your own self. You are a fairly lonely voice on this side of the ‘debate’, with only NDD and his Jeffersonian IQ (sorry if I’ve left anyone else out). I’ll take Colibri’s expertise in biology over that, not to mention the arguments on their merits made in this, and the GD thread, along with my own relevent education and experience. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1769 "2012-06-16T22:45:06Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > For example, actuarial science is taught at the bachelor’s level or beyond. Actuarial science is not, in fact, science (it’s just applied statistical maths), and it’s not taught at bachelor’s level. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1770 "2012-06-16T22:46:23Z")
Too easy. Anyway, your attempt to engage in semantics bores. She weighs 450 lbs and has a family hx of congenital heart defects, he’s a marathon runner whose relatives regularly live into their 90s. Confounding variables! ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1771 "2012-06-16T22:55:33Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > You want to argue semantics What choice do I have given that you made a fallacious argument which was disguised by a phrase you invented? > [@](#): > > and then you invent something called the “Liberal Excuse Machine?” Sure why not? I have observed that people on the Left are constantly inventing excuses for black underachievement. When one excuse does not stand up to scrutiny, they move on to the next excuse. I have referred to this as the “Liberal Excuse Machine.” > [@](#): > > You asked a fair question: perhaps I have a log in my own eye? How would I know? I do the best I can, examine the evidence, including the credentials of those making claims of knowlege in the arena. Finally, I look at consensus and if everyone is telling me the same thing, I better consider closely whether there might be something to it. You might also ask yourself why you just advanced a clearly fallacious argument to support your position but have not retracted it. The reasonable conclusion is that you are so invested in your position that it has warped your thinking. Here is your position again, in case you forgot: **“‘simple observation’ won’t cut it if sustained application of the scientific method is required.”** This is very clear question-begging. > [@](#): > > You might want to consider some of that, your own self. I do. And the way I keep myself honest is to make predictions. To think about what evidence would change my mind. And to make appropriate concessions when the evidence contradicts my position or predictions. > [@](#): > > You are a fairly lonely voice on this side of the ‘debate’, with only NDD and his Jeffersonian IQ (sorry if I’ve left anyone else out). I’ll take Colibri’s expertise in biology over that, not to mention the arguments on their merits made in this, and the GD thread, along with my own relevent education and experience. I prefer facts and logic to **Colibri** ’s bluster or arguments _ad populum_. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1772 "2012-06-16T22:57:19Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Actuarial science is not, in fact, science (it’s just applied statistical maths), and it’s not taught at bachelor’s level. When is it taught? High school? And does epidemology qualify as “science” in your view? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1773 "2012-06-16T22:57:56Z")
The facts are not on your side. Only your prejudices. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1774 "2012-06-16T22:59:39Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I do. And the way I keep myself honest is to make predictions. To think about what evidence would change my mind. And to make appropriate concessions when the evidence contradicts my position or predictions. Bwa Ha Ha! He really makes my day! 😃 His only concession is to ignore evidence and others. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1775 "2012-06-16T22:59:44Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > Too easy. Anyway, your attempt to engage in semantics bores. Again, it’s necessary to demonstrate that your position is false. Perhaps you find it “boring” to have someone demonstrate that your position is false, but more likely you just find it uncomfortable and would rather discuss something else. > [@](#): > > She weighs 450 lbs and has a family hx of congenital heart defects, he’s a marathon runner whose relatives regularly live into their 90s. I’m not sure what your point is here – are you denying that a 50 year old man is more likely to have a heart attack than a 20 year old girl? Are you denying that this can be seen just from simple observation? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1776 "2012-06-16T23:01:24Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > The facts are not on your side. Only your prejudices. I’m sure it seems that way to you . . . but why is it that you won’t retract your question-begging argument? The sky won’t fall. And it’s not a concession that your entire position is wrong. Seems to me the log is in your eye. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1777 "2012-06-16T23:03:15Z")
“Sure why not?” Well, it greatly increases the odds you will dismiss relevent facts contrary to your prejudices, for one. Also, you end up arguing out of both sides of your mouth, trying to pin your argumentative success on “define higher”, then inventing fictions of whole cloth. No integrity there at all, mate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1778 "2012-06-16T23:03:33Z")
The brazil “calm debater” here is just turning nitpickery to 1000 to “ban” everyone in his shrinking nowhere-land, the main reason why it is clear that he is a weasel is the fact that he knows that he can not do this jerk move in Great Debates so that is why we do not see it over there. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1779 "2012-06-16T23:10:38Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > “Sure why not?” > Well, it greatly increases the odds you will dismiss relevent facts contrary to your prejudices, for one. Not really, since I am justified in being skeptical of liberal excuses. I do still consider them. > [@](#): > > Also, you end up arguing out of both sides of your mouth, trying to pin your argumentative success on “define higher”, then inventing fictions of whole cloth. I haven’t invented any fictions. Nor I have I invented phrases to conceal question-begging arguments. Again my questions: Are you denying that a 50 year old man is more likely to have a heart attack than a 20 year old girl? Are you denying that this can be seen just from simple observation? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489/1780 "2012-06-16T23:13:37Z")
Dude it was a turn of phrase. You are trying to make a mountain out of much less than a molehill, I already offered that you can make any reasonable definition of the term you want. And you’re trying to make that the fulcrum of your postion. Pathetic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=88) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-bigoted-asshole-omnibus-thread/623489.md?page=90)