Why you can't have an honest or civil conversation with most racists

Yes, I think you've outed yourself as a nutjob. I don't care if a pro-rapist thinks I'm racist. I'm pointing out this pro-rapist is unhinged and labels others racist for disagreeing with him.

 

Racists in general are nutjobs so you're just projecting. Not everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. Everyone who is hateful or intolerant based on race is a racist. Ofcourse I was just trolling with the rape comments because that racist whore was being uncivil so I decided to mess with her. But I very much doubt you care if a Black woman gets raped or is threatened with it you will just seek any opportunity you can to discredit me because you recognize that I'm a threat to you.

By the way why did you ignore my invitation to post on the Science message board? Mikemikev has been banned. I would like to see how you fair on a board like that since you like to pretend you're some hot shot scientist whose views on racial differences are accurate.

 

You're delusional. I don't legitimize rape of people for any reason.

You've shown yourself to be unhinged and potentially dangerous.

You claim people are racist because they are hateful and intolerant but haven't shown how these people, such as Rushton, fit your definition of racism.

I was not interested in that forum due to the layout, but seeing mikemikev was banned I will undoubtedly be mistaken for him and promptly banned, but may try later tonight.

 

I didn't say you did however you are a racist which makes you a nutjob. You don't think it is crazy to obsesses over the belief in the inferiority of people whose main difference between yourself and them is their skin color? That's insane.

I'm only dangerous to people who pose themselves as a physical threat to me.

Rushton was an academic racist. He tried to prove that some races were smarter and more well-behaved than other races because of genetic differences which is pseudoscientific and fits the first definition of racism below.

Racism

n.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I have shown in the past that Rushton's work is pseudoscientific and racist. Rushton denied he was racist and didn't explicitly make any hateful or intolerant comments that I am aware of (which would have exposed him and ruined his career) but an objective look at his work clearly shows that he was motivated by a racist agenda.

If you go through with it I look forward to seeing you over there. I don't think you will be mistaken for Mikemikev. If they are suspicious of you they will probably check your IP address and since it won't match they will have no reason to ban you. But to be on the safe side you could introduce yourself as Rayznack from Political Forum and make a unique thread.

 

You are imagining I used the word low.



​

 

Pseudoscientific how?

Just because you don't like it?

You even called linking low MAO levels to criminality as pseudoscience.

You're just proving how biased you are.

 

Thanks for the heads up. I'm just amused that he likes to call me a racist. I'm not afraid nor offended by the allegation. I can tell people what I think and let them draw their own conclusions.

Just to be fair, I'm not a student of Scientific Racism (sic) to which this guy trolling us would want me to cop to. Had his reading skills been commensurate with his braggadocio demeanor, I stated that the average white guy views Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Scottish, Irish, Welsch, Scandinavian, etc. people as a race AND that such a description is not the dictionary definition of race.

Still, as a culture / nationality / pseudo race (however you choose to characterize it), I am concerned with the fact that there is no doubt about what constitutes a black race (sic) yet no ability to even discuss a white race. Barack Obama identifies with Blacks racially and Islamic from a religious perspective. But, you and I are not allowed that same courtesy, apparently.

Does that mean I'm a nazi? No. Does it mean I'm a racist? I don't know and don't care how the left wants to classify me. For others, let me put this a different way:

1) IF whites are superior, as a race, how come China holds 46 percent of all U.S. debt?

2) How did we lose our nation to a minority of people that loathe the principles upon which this nation was founded?

3) IF whites are the superior race, how come the white activist leadership continues to use tactics and methods that have not been successful during the course of my life?

I'm not saying they aren't smart and so forth. But, the white activists don't have an outreach program to help others. Danny Thomas, a Jew, started St. Jude's. The Illuminati (presuming you follow conspiracy theology) has the Shriner's Hospital to help children. WHAT program does the white race have to match such efforts?

At one level I can admit to being embarrassed and frustrated by members of my own "race." Our founding fathers built the greatest nation in the annals of history; we printed more Bibles and sent our more missionaries than all the other countries combined!!! We led the world in science, technology and we built an economic infrastructure, the likes of which have never been equaled.

And, we lost it. The white man is a second class citizen in his own homeland. And, unlike the Jews, he is prevented from lobbying for a homeland lest he be criticized and labeled as a racist. Well, personally, I'm tired of having the guilt trip laid on me for ancient history that has been taken out of context. I'm tired of the rest of the world condemning us while living off the sweat of our labors and those going back to the men who fought, bled and died to create our constitutional Republic.

I'm not trying to deny other people their unalienable Rights. I don't profess National Socialism and I'm wholly ignorant of this Scientific Racism stuff to which EJ alludes. One thing is for certain: you cannot discuss racism honestly and / or civilly with people that start their entire narrative with believing they have a corner on the market of truth, knowledge and human virtue. You cannot discuss the issue honestly and civilly with an individual that falsely believes in their own infallibility while feeling the need to call the rest of us names for having the audacity to disagree.

I don't doubt that EJ threatened to rape someone. I started out to engage in honest discourse and feel that EJ tried to man rape me for standing my ground.

 

How many racists are there exactly?
All I know is there's racist blacks in and around Atlanta.
Other than that..not much is certain..Oh yeah..Obama is racist.
And yet it seems he hates my black brethren,too.
It is what it is.
It appears obvious to me he wants to give illegals mine and my friend's jobs.
You know..people who have a heritage of being in the US for 300+ years and a bloodline that is self-telling.
PS:I AM The Kafir.

 

Not because I say so but because Rushton's research and Scientific Racism in general fits the definition of Pseudoscience. I outlined the problems with Rushton's work in this thread. Pseudoscience (fake science) is a theory that has no scientific basis. You can tell that research is pseudoscience if it does not follow the Scientific Method. In science you gather facts, develop a hypothesis to make sense of the facts and then test the hypothesis. Pseudoscience starts with a conclusion, seeks facts fit the conclusion and makes excuses for the facts that do no fit. The difference between science and pseudoscience is that scientists put their theories to a do or die test. If their theory is falsified they come up with new theories and test those until they find a theory that can't be disproved. Pseudoscientists never test their theories. Their research serves as propaganda that seeks to validate strongly held beliefs.

Now look at Rushton's work. Among its problems are that he presented a discredited theory to explain human evolution and when shown by an expert (Joseph Graves) that his theory was wrong he never revised it. He simply ignored the critique. His research was fixated on seeking a genetic basis to racist stereotypes in which he didn't even study human variation in its totality. For instance he completely omitted Native Americans and other groups from his research choosing to focus on "the 3 major races." In reality he simply focused on groups that he could easily use to make his claims of racial hierarchy and ignored groups that messed up his theory. This was pointed out in his debate with David Suzuki who continually criticized Rushton for the selectivity of his data and explained how there was a wealth of evidence that invalidated his theories which he ignored. I had a chance to talk to a scholar who specializes in identifying pseudoscience and distinguishing it from science. I asked him about Scientific Racism specifically and he gave his reasons why it is pseudoscience.

If it were one or a few experts saying that Scientific Racism isn't science then you could argue that they are just biased researchers. However the fact is that prominent scientific organizations representing many scholars such as the American Anthropological Association and American Psychological Association have stated that Scientific Racism is not valid. Not only do they say this but the theory has virtually no support in academia. You will not find modern high school or college level textbooks that teach Scientific Racism. When they do mention the Race & IQ controversy they almost always support an environmental explanation for group differences.

Examples:

Look at this thread to see what a modern textbook says about Race & IQ.

Look for yourself at this lecture on differential psychology and see how this Yale Professor handles the subject (start at 51:16):

[video=youtube;piDznzrNymE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piDznzrNymE[/video]

In light of these facts racists make the ridiculous claim that there is a liberal or Jewish conspiracy to suppress scientific research on racial differences. While mainstream scientists are hostile to these views they have also subjected them to rigorous critique and shown that they are invalid. Go ahead and take a look at some of those sources I provided on the Rushton thread I linked to. As far as low MAO-A levels and their relation to criminality are concerned I already addressed that in this post.

Scientific Racism is pseudoscience and its current status in academia, lack of following the scientific method and general patterns of argumentation establish it as pseudoscience.

 

Then egalitarian anti-racism is also pseudoscience, you guys use the premises that all races are the same, and equal, and when facts don't fit this you disregard them.

In fact, it's usually your side which disregards the facts more commonly.

Of course, because all data supports general differences between race, in stature, genital size, muscle mass,neurotransmitters, thyroid function, cholesterol, lactose intolerance, MAO levels, body hair, testosterone levels, arm length, bone density, brain size, cephalic index, skull vault height, myopia, and so forth.

 

Low MAO - A levels have been shown directly to be involved in criminality.

You just don't want to accept this, because in your fantasy everyone's the same.

Egalitarianism is truly the most stupid, of the stupid.

You'd have to be sort of retarded to believe everyone's the same.

 

I bet egalitarian jay also thinks that it's all environment that Blacks get more schizophrenia, while Whites get more bi polar disorder.

There's no reasoning with an egalitarian, they're simply stuck on stupid.

 

Myopia is linked to higher IQ, and East Asians, and Ashkenazi Jews have more myopia too.

Myopia is overwhelmingly genetic.

Explanation please?

I have had myopia since I was about 7 years old, it's definitely not environment.

Myopia runs in my family, and yes the people with myopia are more intelligent in my family, than the ones without myopia.

It turns out the intelligent nerd with glasses stereotype seems to have a lot of truth behind it.

 

Your arguments are so confused and muddled it's difficult to know where to begin.

Your quotation of Graves defines racism as scientifically unsubstantiated belief in differences between racial groups.

Rushton does not fit your definition of a racist, and despite your claims his views are 'pseudoscience' you have not come anywhere close to refuting his core statements on the cognitive racial differences or convincingly demonstrating such views are entirely environmental.

In your attempt to discredit Rushton, you and others have only managed to discredit yourselves.

I need only remind you of your repeated citation of studies which in fact do not support your views, and actually support Whites having larger brain volume than Blacks.

 

Speaking of low MAO, bi polar, and schizophrenia.

Normal depressed people have high MAO levels. (Women are more likely to be normally depressed, and Women do indeed have higher MAO levels)

While the more mentally ill, and potentially violent, and dangerous bi polar disorder, and schizophrenic's typically have low MAO levels.

It all must be some coincidence?

 

What's Egalitarian Jay's explanation why Men have been more privileged historically, yet more criminal, and violent too?

Is that just environment too?

Men do have lower MAO levels BTW.

All must be some coincidence?

 

By Egalitarian Jay's own logic, Chinese should have low IQ, and PISA scores, because they're of modest incomes, went through extreme famine in the 1960's, were mass murdered by Japanese in WW2, and have higher amount of lead poisoning.

Except Chinese don't score low IQ, or PISA scores.

 

There's even many medical journals supporting these differences.

Maybe you just haven't done enough research?

 

I've done plenty of research. If what you say is true then make a new thread providing all of your claims and all of your sources. Make the thread on the Science Message Board as well so we can have more debaters look at your arguments.

 

I'm not here to prove squat to you. If you see me as a racist, I don't care. You're wasting your time on that count. Let's try something that matters. I'll accept your apology in advance. Here's the proof you requested:

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-barack-hussein-obama-islam-christianity/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCAffMSWSzY

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama's_Religion

Like you said, it doesn't matter, but YOU made much ado about it. I don't give a rat's fanny what the guy believes. He was used as an example and you became unhinged because you are just as racist as anyone out there. ALL that would have been necessary was to say you did not believe Obama was Muslim, but you had to start that "you're a racist" BS again.

You are doing yourself a great disservice.

 

None of your sources are credible and none of them prove that Obama is a Muslim but I am amused at what you consider to be reliable evidence.

 

First you must prove racism is inherently bad, and counter productive.

 

That's funny. You do the same. You name dropped a lot of 'variables' you claimed entirely accounted for the black-white IQ gap but provided no evidence to the degree blacks are more affected by these variables or how much these variables can reduce IQ.

Recall 'stereotype threat' you were name dropping a few weeks back until it was pointed out stereotype threat is not reproducible and does not close the IQ gap to less than 15 points according to the Steele study you cited?

You did not address my arguments. I refuted your claims by pointing to your dishonesty for using sources which themselves did not take data (Gould, Tobias) or showed whites having larger brain volume than blacks (Beals).

You responded to an MRI study showing whites having larger brain volume than blacks by claiming that because the study's authors did not speculate the cause of the brain volume differences this somehow meant a study showing whites having larger brain volume than blacks supported your position.

Your inability to process logic is beyond absurd.

 

Do you also have explanations to why Blacks, walk earlier, go through puberty earlier,and reach menopause earlier?

IMO this is evidence of a different evolutionary strategy.

Particularly walking earlier, there's no way that's just environment.

But, of course you'd disagree, because it doesn't fit the ideal of everyone being the same.

 

Plenty of studies have shown differences in cranial capacity, or brain size among races.

We have genetic support for it, Eurasians do have more genes for increased brain growth, like mutations on MCPH1 found much higher in Eurasians, the mutation on ASPM found much higher in Caucasians, and the mutation on DAB1 found much higher in East Asians.