Edit:
Never mind, he just got banned.
Woo-hoo. One down, one to go!
As noticed before, it is unlikely that we will see your “dazzling intellect” in a scientific journal, but even your new edition of Mein Kampf will be dismissed.
As for your banning:
[Monthy Python and The Holy Grail]
And there was much rejoicing!
[/MPaTHG]
Oh! You’re a true believer, then. Any time now, the truth about races will be revealed, the Messiah will come, and the ETs will land in Washington DC.
Man, the mods were just minutes too late to make this his last post here:
Clearly they had to shut him up before he finally revealed a truth they couldn’t allow to be loosed upon the world.
1st RULE: You do not talk about ABBA.
2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about ABBA.
3rd RULE: If someone says “stop” or goes limp, taps out the dance is over.
4th RULE: Only two guys to a dance.
5th RULE: One dancing queen at a time.
6th RULE: No shirts, no shoes.
7th RULE: Dancing queens will go on as long as they have to.
8th RULE: If this is your dancing queen night at ABBA, you HAVE to dance.
I rather like ABBA.
But I don’t dance.
I certainly understand the general thrust of your argument. Your own assertions (and your noted agreements with fellow traveller NDD) in this thread alone have made that abundantly clear.
However, that is not the issue at hand here. The issue, if I may remind you, is that you asserted the following claim: “Overall, it seems pretty clear that black = greater incidence of crime.” I have since asked you to defend this claim. The claim is not mine - it is yours.
I am merely asking you to back up your claim. If you do not wish to do so, that is fine - it will merely stand as yet one more unsupported claim in a thread that is overflowing with them. However, if you do want to support your claim, you will have to first more clearly define your terms of argument, as they are hopelessly imprecise in current form. If it helps you to do so, pretend that you are submitting a research proposal for a post-graduate program.
I have spent (perhaps misspent) many hours making posts in this thread. My contributions in good faith speak for themselves.
Agreed, and I will be happy to attempt to back up the claim if you first represent to me that you are seriously skeptical of the claim.
See, I have my own rules of debate and one rule is that I will attempt to back up a claim only if the person I am debating represents to me that he is seriously skeptical of the claim. The reason I have this rule is because bad faith debaters have a tendency to demand proof for claims they don’t seriously dispute. Presumably they do this to distract from the core issues and waste my time.
So it’s your choice – if you are not seriously skeptical of my claim, then I’m not going to spend time trying to back it up.
Why? You apparently understand what my claim means, so why does it have to be defined more clearly? I really would like to know.
Perhaps, but it’s curious that you are so reluctant to say “Brazil84, I am seriously skeptical of your claim that ‘black = greater incidence of crime.’” (ETA: regardless of the underlying causes) I would guess it’s because deep down, you know perfectly well that regardless of the underlying causes, my claim is correct.
I’M seriously skeptical of the claim. While in particular social constructs it’s true, in others I believe it’s undoubtedly not. But your claim has no qualifications on it that I can see: it’s absolute. Which makes me think it’s unfounded.
I hate “Hate”. Im such a bigoted hypocrite
I got up this morning, poured myself a cup of International House Iced Vanilla Coffee, let the dog out to pee, then opened ATMB to see the doper news, and there it was! I rubbed my eyes, and it was still there. One less member!!!
Jerry’s final thoughts. We didn’t fail to fight his ignorance here, we exposed it. Maybe, with time, he’ll understand why he is so bigoted and do something to improve himself.
It’s not controversial to note that African Americans are arrested and convicted of many crimes at higher rates than whites.
It’s quite similar to manifest differences in academic achievement. After accounting for socioeconomic indicators, most of these differences are no longer evident. There is evidence for disproportionate minority arrests, but this is simply the study of the “driving while black” phenomenon.
Again, there are no genetic explanations or any inherent moral failing hypotheses that hold up to empirical scrutiny.
That’s a much more limited statement than “black=greater incident of crime,” though. If Brazil wants to modify his initial claim to make it this one instead, I’m no longer skeptical.
NDD, good riddance trash.
What’s an empirical measure of morality? And what do you use as a control?
Well, I was using the term loosely as a catch all, but if you’re really interested, I’ve used the Gibbs Sociomoral Reflection Measure previously, as well as the Rest Defining Issues Test.
I’m not familiar with specific tests of morality and racial differences, though. My statement was that explanations of inherent characterological, innate, or other personal qualities for observed racial group differences are not supported empirically. You may wish to claim that black people care less about their children or are lazier, but there’s no actual evidence for such.
Interesting. I’ll go have a look at those.
I only mentioned it because in one of the other threads (which may now be this thread; I haven’t checked), Now Dearly Departed essentially admitted that his view that blacks were genetically inferior was a belief of his rather than something supported by evidence, and shifted the goalposts to talk about how they were morally inferior instead. Somehow I doubt he was thinking of something empirically measurable when he said it though.
Your experience here sounds like torture. I hope it ends soon.
ATMB: New Deal Democrat has been banned.
My work here is done.