Shanemac requests you put your scientific arguments here

bonkey · 09-09-2003 09:06AM

Prior to the 1960 muslims were rare within switzerland.

Your point being? You're complaining about them in Ireland based on a far shorter period of time. Also, Bern city has one of the first Mosques built in western Europe.

Although you call switzerland a land of tolerance i dont see how it differs from other countries except for that fact it has intolerance laws.

That doesn't distinguish it from other nations. Incitement to hatred is a crime in Ireland as well. What distinguishes it is the fact that it has massive levels of multiculturalism, and by and large this works without a problem - which is what I've been saying from the start. Don't tell me this is the second time I have to remind you that this entire line of conversation started by you asking for "lands of tolerance".

I did not say the swiss were more tolerant,

No. I did.

Seriously dude....I'm beginning to wonder here : first you you can't remember why we're talking about what we're talking about and now it looks like you can't even remember which of us has been talking about what.

they exacted intolerance legislation which shows they thought they would have a problem or did have a problem

I never denied there were racist morons in Switzerland. I said (and look - I even highlighted the term above) that by and large there are no problems.

Furthermore, your notion as to why the law was passed is laughable. Is abortion outlawed in Irelnd because too many people were having them in Ireland? No - it was outlawed because the nation said it was not acceptable to be done, regardless of whether or not it was widespread at the time. Indeed

Should we, for example, remove laws outlawing murder in a nation once murder rates fall below a certain level? I hardly think so.

I've never denied the existence of racists in Switzerland. There's violent crime, death, and all the rest of it too. However, the doom and gloom forecast by xenophobes, monoculturalists, and their ilk that will come as a result of multiculturalism is not in evidence in Switzerland, despite it fitting every criteria of multiculturalism.

And maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet, but this "completely outrageous" anti-intolerance legislation applies to everyone. You keep on abotu incumbent cultures which are preachign intolerance themselves. Guess what? The law applies to them too. If an Imam wants to get up and preach to his people that they should be killing the infidel Swiss locals....he'll find himself at teh receiving end of the same legislation you would for wanting the Muslims stoned out of town.

Bonkey
I dont know what you are on about in that last comment.

Go and look at the line of yours I quoted above it, although this seems like another case of "I've forgotten what I said, and why you're responding to it" from you again........

Well ah the far right is present in switzerland, hmm land of tolerance..

/me points several posts back where he suggested that you check up two parties for their anti-immigration stances.

When did I ever claim that they weren't in Switzerland?
Hell, if you had researched the political parties that I suggested, you'd have found even more useful information.

See above where I mention "by and large".

Hell, you were the one complaining that the Swiss had intolerance laws to prevent this violence, (interesting, that you think permitting violence is a good thing) and complaining about how you couldn't object in Swizterland without giong to jail.....which you now seem to be providing linkage for to show that you were talking through your **** again.

Seriously, this has become laughable.

You obviously didnt have a clue about Switzerland before this started, and now that you've finally decided to do a google on it are trying to bring up the points I've already brought to your attention as though they were something new.

This is a joke. You've no intention of actually discussing anything. You're just desperately trying not to let someone else have the last post, while trying to avoid having to admit that you're wrong in any way.

I grow tired of this.

Tell you what....I'll go away, and you can respond to this, and I'll just ignore it cause its not worth the effort any more. That way you can feel better having gotten the last word and "beaten" me...or something....

See how nice I am

jc

BuffyBot · 09-09-2003 09:26AM

Buffybot i made no ill informed generalisation, I linked to muslim fanatics in england who want to overthrow the government if i wanted to generalise i would have linked to the muslim council of britain as well.

About Narrow mindedness, you are so openminded you support the implimentation of thoughtcrime legislation.

I don't beleive I said anything of the sort :mad:

p.pete · 09-09-2003 09:56AM

Originally posted by BuffyBot
I don't beleive I said anything of the sort :mad:

I think he is mixing our posts up - I tried to suggest that he was narrow-minded although I'll admit this was a little unconstructive of me.

I have no idea where the thoughtcrime legislation legislation bit came from though. He's been accused of putting words in peoples mouth before so maybe it's just another case of that - not sure though whether they were supposed to be put in my mouth or yours.

GuanYin · 09-09-2003 10:27AM

Incidently tuatha, it is interesting that you quote IQ and intelligence as they are totally different things. If you look at the definition of IQ, it actually shows that what it measures (in part) is the opportunities that the person has had to learn over his/her lifetime. This is compounded by the fact that the potential for higher IQ rises with age.

That aside, a collegue tells me that a book called "The Bell Curve" is the one that put forward the Race/IQ theory. However, the authors themselves (Herrnstein and Murray) called for social reforms to improve the status of blacks in America. Social reforms hardly indicate the problem is related to biology, do they? The huge problem with The Bell Curve was that it focused on a group that were not socially equivilent, and seeing as the book examined IQ (not intelligence which is a totally different matter) then it wasn't even good science, never mind an unbiased result. There are many individuals from ethnic minorities with higher IQ's than individual white people (check the military test scores in the US, ironically african-americans scored higher over the past 80 years than white southerners) and vice versa. Which is what Peter Singer echoed in "Practical Ethics" (Cambridge Press, 1993)

the fact that the average IQ of one racial group is a few points higher than that of another does not allow anyone to say that all members of the higher IQ group have higher IQs than all members of the lower IQ group

In any case, I've already shown you why there is no such thing as race really, seeing as of the 16% or so genetic (allele) variation between individuals is less than the 5% or so that account for skin colour differences. You could as easily make an argument that anyone with a longer second toe and black hair is of a different race as someone with dark skin.

shanemac · 10-09-2003 03:55PM

So, it turns out Skyeirl is not even Irish...and he presumes to lecture the real Irish on what they should choose for the future of their country. :rolleyes:

This is just what's happened here in Australia. People from different ethnic groups tend to vote as a block...which has led to a phenomenon known as the "ethnic lobby", whereby the wishes of the non-nationals become more important in the political process than the interests of the nationals...because of the political power that their block voting brings.

Skyeirl I gather your ancestry is Korean (or half Korean anyway)...I wonder if your parents would want Korea swamped with several millions of people from Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Africa.... the last time a large number of Japanese tried to immigrate into Korea, they were welcomed less than wholeheartedly...in a delightful little chapter of history known as the second world war. To date Korea accepts not a single refugee, even though the country has one of the highest standards of living in the world (over US$19,000 GDP/capita). In fact the Korean migration rate is given as 0 migrants /1000 population .... (all figures from CIA factbook)

Good for the Koreans, the Chinese and the Japanese...they are smart enough to avoid the multicultural nightmare. Therefore they are not headed towards cultural oblivion like the west is....they will still have a national identity when the west is just another part of the 3rd world.

shanemac · 10-09-2003 04:01PM

Sorry...don't like to get personal in debating, but I have read my own good name dragged through a lot of mud in over about 20 pages over this BB. Anyway... carry on! :cool:

shanemac · 10-09-2003 04:14PM

Originally posted by sykeirl

In any case, I've already shown you why there is no such thing as race really, seeing as of the 16% or so genetic (allele) variation between individuals is less than the 5% or so that account for skin colour differences. You could as easily make an argument that anyone with a longer second toe and black hair is of a different race as someone with dark skin.

Genetic differences between racial groups code for far more than just skin colour. The skin colour is just the most obvious indicator of the genetic makeup of the individual. However, genetic differences between races cut across a wide array of traits (in fact, across all traits).

p.pete · 10-09-2003 04:28PM

Originally posted by shanemac
However, genetic differences between races cut across a wide array of traits (in fact, across all traits).

Is that like saying black men have bigger shlongs?, I've missed you shanemac - hasn't been the same without you (too much logic and common sense:D) hope your keeping well.

GuanYin · 10-09-2003 04:43PM

Welcome back!

Originally posted by shanemac
So, it turns out Skyeirl is not even Irish...

I was born here. I hold a passport and I speak Irish fluently.

Considering you have been referring to Irish people as "they" and "them" on stormfront.....

Posted by SMC on Stormfront
Is that Boards.ie bulletin board representative of Irish people generally, or is it over-representated by pseudo intellectual lefties?

If the former, then Ireland is finished as a nation. It's just a matter of time before they're swamped by 3rd worlders & their country sinks into the abyss.

......I think the only person here whose eligability of Irishness is in question here is yours?

Firstly, is that North Korea or South Korean Republic you are giving facts for as its a very different thing. In any case I dunno anyone living in Korea so I can't comment on who would what want or what they did.

Secondly, why would think I am Korean? I mentioned Korean in one post I think,

posted by Sykeirl
Korean culture is about sport, beer drinking, theatre etc.

but anyone who watched or was at the 2002 world Cup can atest to that and I mentioned about 6 other countries during the course of these threads aswell. Still, you seem to make a habit of jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, so at least your consistant. If you are interested American is my second nationality.

Originally posted by shanemac Sorry...don't like to get personal in debating, but I have read my own good name dragged through a lot of mud in over about 20 pages over this BB. Anyway... carry on! [/B]

Apology accepted, now, seeing as your've tried propaganda, rhetoric and personal insults, how about some substatiated evidence and legitimate references to back your arguements and refute other peoples. It'll make a nice change from your stormfront policy recital and you know diversity is always a good thing after all!

GuanYin · 10-09-2003 04:47PM

Originally posted by shanemac
Genetic differences between racial groups code for far more than just skin colour. The skin colour is just the most obvious indicator of the

True, well done! You've made a scientific reference that is nearly bulls*t free.

Originally posted by shanemac

genetic makeup of the individual. However, genetic differences between races cut across a wide array of traits (in fact, across all traits).

Ohhh!! Hard luck! You just went and spoiled it all by posting tripe again.

Of every gene in your body, approximately 6% of them are alleles that make the physical difference between any two races.

Now, including those 6%, 15% of your genes are there to make any two individuals different. We've explained this to you in many posts in various ways, which part of it are you having difficulty understanding?

Capt'n Midnight · 10-09-2003 06:48PM

Expression - all cells in your body contain the same DNA sequence, but there are many different types of cells. Also some genes are only processed in response to evironmental (in the cell)triggers. Also genes may not be fully expressed because of nutritional factors - you can't grow big and tall if you starve. Also viruses affect development especially those that integrate into the chromosomes - cf. shingles.

All of this means you can't predict accurately the phenotype that will be produced even if you could decode the entire genome. This also provides another level of diversity.

ShaneMac - what are the distinguishing characterics that mark one group superior or inferior to another as opposed to those that only distinguish various groups ?
Note: to be distinguishing the average difference in characteristic between groups must be greater than the standard deviation within each group.

PS. have you seen GATTACA - if so which character would you like to be - which character would you be realistically..

bonkey · 10-09-2003 07:05PM

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
what are the distinguishing characterics that mark one group superior or inferior to another as opposed to those that only distinguish various groups ?

For any given individual who tends to believe in genetic superiority, it generally seems to break down thusly :

Similar to me == superior
Dissimilar to me == inferior

jc

Zombrex · 10-09-2003 10:27PM

Originally posted by shanemac
So, it turns out Skyeirl is not even Irish...and he presumes to lecture the real Irish on what they should choose for the future of their country. :rolleyes:

This is just what's happened here in Australia.

Er you mean the "real" Irish who don't actually live here??

ROFL:rolleyes:

Zombrex · 10-09-2003 10:36PM

Originally posted by shanemac
Genetic differences between racial groups code for far more than just skin colour. The skin colour is just the most obvious indicator of the genetic makeup of the individual. However, genetic differences between races cut across a wide array of traits (in fact, across all traits).

*sigh* .. you know nothing about genetics

what sykeirl is saying is true ... there is no such thing as "race" .. you are as genetically different to the white person living next door as you are to a black man in the heart of Africa .. some groups of people take on the same evolutionary adaptions to their enviornment (blonds in Sweden), but that doesn't make them significatly similar or different enough to call them a "race".

Over all there is very very little genetic difference in the human species (certainly not enough to divide up "races") .. this is because we all came from a handful of humans thousands of years ago

shanemac · 11-09-2003 02:41AM

I don't don't have time to get pulled back into this particular civics class....I've had enough "egalitarian" propaganda drilled into me since childhood to last me a lifetime.... I just wish there was more scientific objectivity from those geneticists and anthropologists who have been elevated to the highest echelons of the scientific community.

They're all paranoid about upsetting people...."Voltaire, Jefferson, the American Declaration of Independence, the Law faculty, the social science faculty, the University's board of ethics and all those great looking female undergrads I'd like to impress, all say that every human being on the face of the planet is equal in every way (despite 100,000 years of divergent evolution), so I'm going to spend my academic career using science to prove it...".

*sigh* .. you know nothing about genetics

But ms Wick...I have studied genetics at university level (B.Sc. 1st class hons - not that I believe academic qualifications alone give you a real education - you can get high marks from simply towing the line and regurgitating other people's false ideology), and I worked for a time in this field.

sceptre · 11-09-2003 04:57AM

Originally posted by shanemac
I have studied genetics at university level (B.Sc. 1st class hons

How come your posts on the subject in this thread seem to indicate you don't know very much about the subject then? Apart from the obvious "blacks are inferior and they'll take away our country and culture" rhetoric. Did you do genetics in second year, sleep through it and then work very hard in fourth year or something? And I'm asking that as a serious question - based on your posts it just doesn't add up.

I'd dearly love to hear the answer to this question:

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
ShaneMac - what are the distinguishing characterics that mark one group superior or inferior to another as opposed to those that only distinguish various groups ?
Note: to be distinguishing the average difference in characteristic between groups must be greater than the standard deviation within each group

At least then we'd actually have something to discuss.

Zombrex · 11-09-2003 09:59AM

Originally posted by shanemac
I just wish there was more scientific objectivity from those geneticists and anthropologists who have been elevated to the highest echelons of the scientific community.

... you can get high marks from simply towing the line and regurgitating other people's false ideology),

So you just went along with the "false ideology" (fact, some would say) that there isn't enough genetic diversity to distinguish between races and that race doesn't really exist. And then SF showed you "THE TRUTH!!!" (ie black people, are in fact, evil)

I guess it must be hard when the entire respected scientific community says one thing, and Stormfront says another ... who to believe??

p.pete · 11-09-2003 10:46AM

Another dismissive post - I suppose in the face of evidence it's the best option.

Originally posted by shanemac
I don't don't have time to get pulled back into this particular civics class....

Civics? surely science, no? (don't let it get to you, do you stutter when your angry?)

Originally posted by shanemac

I just wish there was more scientific objectivity from those geneticists and anthropologists who have been elevated to the highest echelons of the scientific community.

What? they are only being objective when they come up with the answers that support your notions - is that it?

Originally posted by shanemac

"Voltaire, Jefferson, the American Declaration of Independence, the Law faculty, the social science faculty, the University's board of ethics and all those great looking female undergrads I'd like to impress, all say that every human being on the face of the planet is equal in every way (despite 100,000 years of divergent evolution), so I'm going to spend my academic career using science to prove it...".

First question I suppose would be - who are you quoting there?, secondly - have they gotten anywhere with their lifes work yet? I always thought that science was better at disproving things then actually proving them. If you set out to prove something specific and are working subjectively then you usually end up proving something completely different (or else just disproving what it was that you were trying to proove).

Originally posted by shanemac

...I have studied genetics at university level (B.Sc. 1st class hons - not that I believe academic qualifications alone give you a real education - you can get high marks from simply towing the line and regurgitating other people's false ideology), and I worked for a time in this field.

I have an honours engineering degree, doesn't make me an engineer though. What kind of work have you done in the field? Also a lot of people arguing against you here are indeed more qualified than you in this area.

GuanYin · 11-09-2003 12:46PM

Originally posted by shanemac
I don't don't have time to get pulled back into this particular civics class....I've had enough "egalitarian" propaganda drilled into me since childhood to last me a lifetime.... I just wish there was more scientific objectivity from those geneticists and anthropologists who have been elevated to the highest echelons of the scientific community.

They're all paranoid about upsetting people...."Voltaire, Jefferson, the American Declaration of Independence, the Law faculty, the social science faculty, the University's board of ethics and all those great looking female undergrads I'd like to impress, all say that every human being on the face of the planet is equal in every way (despite 100,000 years of divergent evolution), so I'm going to spend my academic career using science to prove it...".

So scientists are lying? What about all the publications and data? Gene analysis is tangible. You can show the similarities and differences between genes. Are you saying its a big conspiracy against Stormfront? Don't you think some SF member would have been able to publish scientific evidence to back your claims? Yet they haven't. All they have is poorly constructed social surveys for IQ, which, as a statistical analysis of intelligence, is biased before you even start.

Originally posted by shanemac

But ms Wick...I have studied genetics at university level (B.Sc. 1st class hons - not that I believe academic qualifications alone give you a real education - you can get high marks from simply towing the line and regurgitating other people's false ideology), and I worked for a time in this field.

Oh come on! You have shown on numerous occasions that you don't have a grasp of the basic concepts of genetics (that originated in a time before your views were proved wrong by modern science and still popular). Did you do a genetics degree or did you have one or two modules of genetics in a general science degree? What did you do in the field? Did you work running gels as a technician or did you actually contribute, study the literature and publish? In fairness, cabin crew work with planes every day, but I don't expect them to have an understanding of aerodynamics of flight engineering.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-09-2003 08:59PM

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.
- George Bernard Shaw

The same would also apply to other groupings and names applied to them.

=========================================

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address

=========================================

You may be aware of diseases like AIDS, EBOLA, Spanish Influenza (killed more people than WWI). They occur in other species and only have a high mortality rate in humans - all humans - this shows our limited genetic diversity.

Consider that humans have shared new diseases from all around the world (syphalis was discovered by one of Chris Columbuses captains - measles was the recropical gift) - these have been fatal to populations that have not built up an immunity. But AFAIK no animal species has be decimated by a human disease. It's not because human diseases can't hop to them - it's because there is a better chance their greater diversity means infection and transmission and fatality rates are lower - they don't all fall sick in the same way.

Splitting the human race into sub-groups would reduce the gene pool and taken to its furthest extent - so when a particular (not IF note) virulant flu arrives it could take out some groups ....

TuathaDeDanaan · 15-09-2003 03:51AM

Ok i've been away for a little bit but im going to try to address few points here briefly. Theres no point in trying to argue against 5 people at once trying to give a coherant response to each once when i dont have the time.

Capt'n Midnight.

Splitting the human race into sub-groups would reduce the gene pool

I disagree, It would increase genetic diversity, as it has done in the past, read sickle cell disease and its flip side in the prevention of malaria.

As an example of present levels of genetic diversity..
Diseases seen more frequently in the Ashkenazi Jewish population are shown here.....
Bloom syndrome
Canavan disease
Cystic Fibrosis
Deafness
Familial Dysautonomia
Fanconi anemia
Gaucher disease
Niemann-Pick disease
Tay-Sachs disease
[From Cochran]
BRCA1
BRCA2 (breast cancer risk genes)
torsion dystonia
Factor XI deficiency (clotting disorder)
non-classic CAH
familial Mediterranean fever
familial hyperinsulinism
familial hypercholesterolemi
glycogen storage disease VII
pentosuria
maple syrup urine disease
mucolipidosis type IV.

Paper from the american journal of human genetics for the source hunters out there.

Is is to be noted also that the ashkenazi are using eugenics means to remove many of the diseases.

bonkey
Probably my main beef with bonkey is he may believe that multiculture is as good as or better then monoculture which I totally disagree with. His defense of multiculture seems to be a defense of a rich european mountain state which lies at the heart of europe to somehow justify france, brazil..
His stifling argumentative style to hold aloft switzerland as some shining cross against me while not saying much else has become too tiresome.

Sykierl
Re IQ, general intelligence G, IQ, SAT scores correlate with each other..

IQ in Japan and the United States shows a growing disparity.
Nature, 1983, 306, 291-2

However, the authors themselves (Herrnstein and Murray) called for social reforms to improve the status of blacks in America. Social reforms hardly indicate the problem is related to biology, do they?

Both of them have said things that could be interpreted as advocating race extermination too.. Thier book describes how both genetics and environment affect IQ. Trying to improve the left half of the bell curve would not contridict anything they say.

There are many individuals from ethnic minorities with higher IQ's than individual white people (check the military test scores in the US, ironically african-americans scored higher over the past 80 years than white southerners) and vice versa.

Yes east/south asians/ashk.jews/ score as well as or better then whites. About those tests too.. people are given IQ tests on admittance and the income disparity between blacks and whites who enlist is minimal, study here....
True the test I was pointed to in the 1940's did show a gap between the backward southern whites and the northern black elite. I did not see any recent studies on this effect in the last 50 years though. Any point is that the military make widespread use of aptitude tests.

There are many individuals from ethnic minorities with higher IQ's than individual white people

Of course, im talking of average groups difference here..

Just some related papers..
Papers:
Jensen, Arthur R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39(1), 1-123.

Richard Lynn

The role of nutrition in the secular increase of intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 1990, 11, 273-286.

Race differences in intelligence: a global perspective. Mankind Quarterly,1990,1,255-296.

also he has a book out called IQ and the wealth of nations, which is an atlas of IQ scores vs GDP and shows a strong corellation.

Sandra Scorrs work on transracial adoption is interesting reading too. Refutes some of the environmental factors stuff..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/message/3225

I'll add to this later if you want particular information but i am limited of course in my access to journals and papers which you may not be...

Regarding the existance/ none existance of race. Saying that the variation between individuals of a race and comparing it to the average of another race is not meaningful. Sure there is a lot of gene variation between myself and some retarded throwback with congenital defects up the road, or between myself with a women who has large amounts of dna i do not have or myself and a armenian from the caucasus. Does that mean I cannot classify? that some of the berbers have blonde hair make race invalid, no. tell that to the eskimos in canada battling alcohol addiction or the africans with sickle cell anemia.

Race can be used to diagnose and perscribe diseases and medicines,organ transplant acceptance, increase detection rates of terrorists etc.

If there are instances of anomalies between what consitutes man and women it does not make the social construct of gender invalid.

As in your case your very presence doesnt necessitate the abolishment of the difference between east asian and north west europeans. Skin colour isnt everything sure, but epicanthic folds eyelids, different morphology, body/facial structure, tolerances and thick black coarse hair and a different maturation rate to lead me to make a distinction. regarding the genes variation, Sykierl are you familier with the haplomap project. It will confirm the differences im taking about here or disprove it! It will map the dna from 3 groups and compare em. Read!

i'm caught for time now be back later if you want to attack me on anything else...

GuanYin · 15-09-2003 09:44AM

Tutha, you are missing the point entirely (and at this point, I think deliberately).

When you define a creature as a species you look at genetic distintiveness. This is "our genes". We are approx 98.4 per cent indistinguishable from a chimpanzee in this sense. But largely indistinguishable from each other, irrespective of origin.

Now, due to environmental selection pressures we may have our genes express in different ways but this does not constitute species and by the same manner if you constitute race on a genetic level (is you want to use it as a socio-labelling term, its your call) you would have to include europeans living at high altitudes, people who are more resistant to toxins in local food stuffs along with people with different physical attributes. Genetically speaking, its all the same thing.

Trying to improve the left half of the bell curve would not contridict anything they say.

No but it contradicts what you were saying and your use of their work to support your previous argument that certain races aren't as intelligent. Incidently, IQ and SATs test for roughly the same thing, environmentally absorbed intelligence relevent to those creating the test. I saw a good passage written somewhere (may have been a boards.ie post) regarding IQ. It basically goes along the lines of if you were brought up in a jungle, would an IQ test that you created be passable by anyone else? General Knowledge Questions like "which beetle is poisoness?" and spetial relations like "Which Tree will the jaguar not be able to climb?" are testing the same thing but in different contexts. If someone is in a socio-ecoonomic group where they don't get the context, they don't do well in the test.

ace can be used to diagnose and perscribe diseases and medicines,organ transplant acceptance, increase detection rates of terrorists etc

Yes, but it has no scientific basis in this classification. It is purely a perception based classification, there is nothing tangible in it, unless of course you want to seperate all people with different blood groups as races (in which case you and one of your parents and siblings may be of different races).

As for the terrorist, so if 20 white people and 20 muslim people were standing beside each other, you could pick out the likely terrorists just by looking? (what if the 10 of the 20 white people were IRA activists or UVF? Can you spot them just by looking?).

Finally, if you want to keep casting aspirations to my race or appearance or even my personal position, feel free, I'm sure its great stress relief against someone you feel is obviously undermining your beliefs system. But like everything else you talk about here, you have no basis to found your assumtions.

I could be an african-american-irish man, I could be a white american irishman, I could be an asian american irishman or I could be a latino-american irishman or whatever way you want to label me. You just don't know.

GuanYin · 15-09-2003 10:44AM

Tuatha, I have no interest in PM-ing you or receiving PMs from you.

If you want to post your last PM to me up here, please do.

bonkey · 15-09-2003 11:38AM

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
His stifling argumentative style to hold aloft switzerland as some shining cross against me while not saying much else has become too tiresome.

Or, put a different way :

1) You can't show that multiculturalism doesn't work in Switzerland.

2) You can't explain why multiculturalism may work in Switzerland but not in other places, because doing so would undermine your assertion that its a genetic (or otherwise "unsolveable") issue.

So - best remaining option to you is to stop discussing Switzerland. I was wondering how long it would take you to provide a pretext for doing just that.

To date, you have been trying to argue from an informed point of view that multiculturalism does not and cannot work. At the same time, you have shown nothing but a complete lack of "informedness" about somewhere where multuculturalism would appear to work.

It may seem tiresome to you, but I don't need more than this one argument to show that - at the very least - your position is not based on well-informed reasoning, but rather you have selected what to be informed on purely and solely to defend your already-chosen position.

Referring to me as "tiresome" merely shows that you have no interest in re-evaluating your position based on evidence that you clearly have not considered.

Thats all I need to do to show that your position is not a rational one arrived at by examniing the evidence. If it was, then being presented with new evidence should cause you to both examine said evidence properly, and question your underlying assumptions. Rather than do that, you dismiss the potential evidence as "tiresome".

Hence your arguments would appear to not be based on rational reasoning, but rather read like a position which has been adopted, and then the evidence gathered which is needed to support that position.

As such, they are dismissable.

You find me and my argument tiresome? No worries. I'll stop now, because you have more or less just proven that your argument - tiresome or not - is not based on rational, informed reasoning.

In short, its instantly dismissable.

jc

TuathaDeDanaan · 16-09-2003 01:35AM

Sykeirl, no interest in refining or clarifying your points to me? fair enough This conversation is over then.

Bonkey cant concede anything so ive no interest in his stonewall argument switzerland is multicultural so multiculturalism=good.

bonkey · 16-09-2003 08:15AM

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
Tuatha, I have no interest in PM-ing you or receiving PMs from you.

If you want to post your last PM to me up here, please do.

Meets with :

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
Sykeirl, no interest in refining or clarifying your points to me? fair enough This conversation is over then.

I thought skyeirl was trying to make you stick to this conversation rather than going off into a seperate one ?????

But hey - apparent misinterpretation of the facts seems to be a common theme here.

Bonkey cant concede anything so ive no interest in his stonewall argument

Oh thats classic.

I can't concede anything because every time you've tried to raise a point I've shown it to be categorically wrong, and/or grossly misinformed/underinformed.

But if calling that "stonewalling" makes you feel better, then go for it.

jc

GuanYin · 16-09-2003 09:02AM

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
Sykeirl, no interest in refining or clarifying your points to me? fair enough

I assume that this is giving my permission to post your PM here. Good!

TuathaDeDanaan wrote on 15-09-2003 10:29:
I'm just looking over your message just a few comments..
Right im not going to spam the board right now on this, revise your message if you can please....

What is there to revise? Are you asking me to agree with you? Oh well ok then..... sheesh! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
Profilling of irish people entering britain as suspected terrorists has been going on a long time and justly so, Its logical to narrow down the odds when you have limited resources, how people with irish-X ancestry who are stopped entering ireland by immigration authorities are justified in doing so too for example justifibly because they have limited resources and unable to Individualise each. Same goes for hoteliers who dont appreciate the joys of a tinkers wedding...

Hrmmm..... I think the predjudices of a hotel management and the message a state government sends out to the world are slightly unequal arguments. That aside, the approach the British too worked well didn't it? How many Irish men wrongly imprisoned
and had their lives taken away? This is the exact problem you have when you generalise about a culture or race, as you have been doing. Its the "Nelly is a pink Elephant, therefore all elephants are pink" type logic that has no place anywhere.

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
Diddo screening for disease, If im a docter and i have an expert system It will help me narrow done the symptoms of a patient by looking at factors such as geographic area, race or ethnic group etc.. I'm saying its sometimes necessary to generalise because most of the people most of the time do not have total knowlege awareness of the situations they deal with.

Yes, except that A) if you are a doctor, you are trying to help the people, not brand them or discriminate against them.

This is not racial branding, there are diseases that only effect certain populations of people, be they black, white, women, men whatever. The arguement that you ar emaking about genetic branding of race still doesn't apply, whatever "gene" makes a person susceptable to any given disease is present in every human. If a person is susceptable (or immune, it works both ways), it is merely that a mutation has cause that gene to express in a different manner. Still the same gene there. The point is, medical use of "race classification" is never (or at least should never be) used to discriminate. The classifications you are implying, are.

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
now this...
"Trying to improve the left half of the bell curve would not contridict anything they say."
"No but it contradicts what you were saying and your use of their work to support your previous argument that certain races aren't as intelligent."

explain this point your trying to make here please. where is the contridiction...

BEcause you think that IQ is based on genetics. It isn't. You can have two totally identical people, genetically exact and raise one in a slum and another in a private school. Will they both score the same? Of course not. Its the environment that gives them intelligence. So if this is the case, seeing as The Bell Curve admitted that there was a bias in the socio-economics of the test subjects, how can you ever correlate intelligence to race unless you have two equal subject groups on a socio-economic level. Its just bad science and as much has been said by just about every leading geneticist.

The deconstructionist argument at the end about the guy in the forest , this type of thinking could be applied to any argument. gravity does not exist because i cannot jump. I must have an Iq of zero because im in a coma... There are also culture nutral tests... Ravens progressive matrices of something like that is one...

You seriously misunderstand what IQ is testing for. You do not have an IQ of zero ina coma, you are just untestable. The fact of the matter is, human intelligence applies to what they know. You could have excellent spacial relations scores for fitting engineered shapes together, but would you immediately know what tree is easy for you to climb and hard for the jaguar? No, but they both test for exactly the same thing and use the same part of the brain. My analogy, while like a goldfish(sorry ecksor), is exactly the reason why you can't use the same IQ test on a a princeton student and a village elder in Kenya and expect a comparable result.

I didnt label you yet in the awy you mean here i dont think either, Shanemac did..

Well why do you keep bringing it up? I don't particularly mind, but you're wrong in all your assumptions.

TuathaDeDanaan · 16-09-2003 09:34AM

So you mutilate my PM adn seemingly on pupose add your own meaning to my words. fair game then. by the way I did not give you permission to post as you arrogantly wish for your own purpose of continued obfuscation and the removal of rational discourse. I said none of the things you accuse me of. I explained to you the difference betwen averages of groups and the individual are not the same thing and that IQ isnt a simple biological argument yet you ignore me. I then ask you to explain yourself and you mock me.
Enough
This discussion is over

GuanYin · 16-09-2003 09:45AM

So you see you're wrong and won't reply in public but won't admit it?

I still have the PM, I'm happy for anyone of the admins to look in my inbox and see if what I have quoted you as saying is what the original PM said.

Just so I'm not accused of mis-quoting you, would one of the admins mind looking at the PM from tutha and posting it here?

Silent Bob · 16-09-2003 11:17AM

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
So you mutilate my PM adn seemingly on pupose add your own meaning to my words. fair game then. by the way I did not give you permission to post as you arrogantly wish for your own purpose of continued obfuscation and the removal of rational discourse. I said none of the things you accuse me of. I explained to you the difference betwen averages of groups and the individual are not the same thing and that IQ isnt a simple biological argument yet you ignore me. I then ask you to explain yourself and you mock me.
Enough
This discussion is over

That's rich, you didn't even have the cojones to post what was in that PM in a public forum...

Shanemac requests you put your scientific arguments here

Comments