I would need some context to know. In any event, it doesn’t change the fact that your argument is clearly based on special pleading.
Lol, nice strawman.
I’m sure it seems that way to you, given your lack of self awareness.
I’m not sure who you mean by “thoughtful conservatives,” but very few people are willing to challenge the Taboo I referred to.
This is like trying to explain the Infield Fly Rule to a peanut…
As pointed before, it is idiotic to assume that virtually all scientists and experts are leftists, but brazil will always find a way to demonstrate that he can be even more stupid.
It might help if you took the time to actually read and understand what other people are saying and then considering it critically. Rather than simply responding to what you wish or imagine they said.
It also might help if you do some soul searching when it’s pointed out to you that you made an assertion with very little thought that just happened to (appear to) support your conclusions. And was either false or meaningless.
It’s clear that NDD and B84 aren’t interested in a debate, nor frankly are they capable of holding up one end of an argument. Either they don’t understand how science works, or they’re deliberately being obtuse. Logical, well supported, and testable arguments aren’t going to convince them of anything because they didn’t use logic or reason to arrive at their positions. This isn’t the first thread where they’ve trotted out the same erroneous, pathetic, or misunderstood citations and some of the most twisted, idiotic, and racist logic.
The only benefit from engaging them is to clearly illustrate to other observers that the arguments put forth by NDD and B84 and their ilk are vacuous, illogical, racist, and fundamentally not science. Choosing to take up arms against stupidity is never a bad thing, but keep in mind that your goal shouldn’t be trying to change their minds on the subject. You’d have no more luck teaching a stump to tango.
I can’t wait to see how NDD either hand-waves or ignores away my evidence against his positions this time! Oh boy, oh boy!
Brazil, you didn’t score any points off me, or win any arguments. But then, I knew you’d declare victory anyway. You’ve pretty much whatever semblence of coherence you started with. NDD, for whatever it might be worth to you, has fared even less well than yourself.
So you admit to the rest of it.
This really is like arguing with a five year old.
Nope.
Should I assume that you admit to any point I make to you which you do not specifically respond to?
For one thing, I demonstrated that your on of your assertions was either wrong or question-begging.
I also seem to have changed your mind on one point. Earlier, you seemed to be very confident that I did not know who Spearman was. You seem to have lost that confidence.
A few posts back, you substituted a total strawman for my actual position. This tells me that quite likely you do not understand my position in the slightest. On the other hand, I understand both sides of the debate very well.
Agreed.
I think you are just projecting here.
For example, a logical, testable argument asserting that “race doesn’t exist” should contain criteria for deciding whether a group doesn’t exist. And the arguer should be willing to apply those same criteria to other groups.
Yet nobody on the other side of the discussion is able or willing to do this.
Similarly, if somebody wants to assert that black underachievement in Haiti is due to some cause besides genetics, they should set forth with reasonable precision what their proposed alternate cause is. And then they should be willing to look at non-Black countries which have experienced similar hardships. And they should be willing to do this in a civil manner.
Yet nobody on the other side of the discussion is willing or able to do this either.
Instead, when their claims are scrutinized, they either disappear or start hurling insults.
Ample evidence has already been presented here. You’re just too dumb to understand it or too juvenile to acknowledge it.
The first part of this statement is a lie.
The insults come because we’re dealing with individuals who are devoid of intellectual or moral integrity.
No, the problem is that I subject it to the same scrutiny as any other evidence or argument. And it doesn’t stand up.
Nonsense, for example Heart of Dorkness disappeared after Post #1058.
By the way, do you still insist that the Oxford Online Dictionary’s definition of “bluster” is wrong?
Also, do you agree that your accusation that my use (or misuse) of the word “bluster” is a triviality?
Oh boy, he **does **think that posts that are inconvenient to him disappear because the one that made it is gone from the discussion, what a maroon!
Yeah, kinda like when he started to assert that heart attacks or digestion were simple phenomenon, I responded, and crickets…
blus·tered, blus·ter·ing
Definition of BLUSTER
intransitive verb
1
: to talk or act with noisy swaggering threats
2
a : to blow in stormy noisy gusts
b : to be windy and boisterous
transitive verb
1
: to utter with noisy self-assertiveness
2
: to drive or force by blustering
— blus·ter·er noun
— blus·ter·ing·ly adverb
Examples of BLUSTER
He brags and blusters, but he never really does what he says he’ll do.
“I don’t want to hear it!” he blustered.
The wind blustered through the valley.
Origin of BLUSTER
Middle English blustren, probably from Middle Low German blüsteren
First Known Use: 15th century
No, you’re just 1) too stupid to understand it, and 2) if you did understand it, too bigoted to accept it.
Cretin.
You probably bored him to death.
The liberal dogma and cliche that “race is only a social construct” is more over definition than scientific fact. As more is learned about the human genome it is becoming obvious that race is a useful biological concept. Those in different races are susceptible to different diseases. For example, Negroes are more prone to get high blood pressure. This is because in the hot climate of Africa they perspire more, and their bodies have natural ways to conserve salt. This had survival value in the past. In a cooler climate, where it is easy to add salt to food, it becomes a problem.
In the United States Negroes have a rate of violent crime that is eight times the white rate. A difference of that significance cannot possibly be attributed to environment. It is clearly a biological characteristic, caused by the proximity of the Negro race to the stone age.