Republican: Yes, We're Racist

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Not The Guardian, Jan 30, 2014.

  1. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Did you find that quote justifying slavery yet, or can I chalk you up as illiterate and delirious?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Sorry, what studies are discredited in those links?
     
  2. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Someone is illiterate and delirious here, and it isn't me. You haven't recognized the flaw in your own thinking yet, which also happens to be the answer to your question. I've quoted you several times already. Are you having problems recognizing your own words? "Now, the simple truth is that it is perfectly logical to be racist when racism is logical.". That is called a justification. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the word. Justification: "an acceptable reason for doing something". Now, do you deny that you wrote that? You are saying that there is a logical justification for racism. Can we "chalk" you up as another conservative in denial?
     
  3. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BTW...I did you a favor by checking out one of your links. Rushton??? Really?

    This is not altogether different from groups that fund the concept of Creation Science as legitimate science to promote and impose a religious perspective into the Science classroom. Couple that with a biological explanation for the superiority of the White Race, and you get the complete package: Religion as Science, and a scientific justification for racism. :applause:

    So...not only do you put this out there; "Did you find that quote justifying slavery yet, or can I chalk you up as illiterate and delirious?", you ignore your own words; ""Now, the simple truth is that it is perfectly logical to be racist when racism is logical.", and you offer up a link to a thread you have with what are presented as scientific justifications for racism. You seem to obsessed with trying to prove that racism is justifiable. I would imagine that if that's the case, that racism is something very near and dear to whatever remains of what would be called a heart.
     
  4. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Where's the quote and link where I justify slavery?
     
  5. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And r/K theory has what to do with regression toward the mean and early age intelligence differences cited by Rushton?
     
  6. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, you accept it without justification.
    In post #2 you offered this:
    Right there you are telling us that there is a logical justification for racism. You haven't shown that other then through discredited scientific racism in your links. Also you're saying that there is nothing wrong with Jim Browns reasoning. But Brown say's this; ""Basically slave owners took pretty good care of the slaves and livestock and this kept business rolling along". So Browns comment rests on the idea that humans as property is acceptable as long as it keeps business "rolling along". And of course, being property, it's important to take care of the property that you own. It also holds that if your livestock is sick or can't function, then being property, you can dispose of it as you choose. You can sell it. Or you could simply put it down. After all, it's your property to dispose of as you will. If a human slave is the equivalent of livestock, there is no logical reason not to take the same approach in the disposal of the slave. If you can't bring yourself to doing that, then it isn't because of the logic that you used in seeing the slave as property. There is nothing in the logic of a slave as property that would stand in the way of the disposal of the slave as you would any other sick animal or broken tool. Logically, you could sell it, or put it down. The slave is no more significant than any other livestock.

    In post #13, you state this;

    But the analogy rests on slavery an acceptable practice to begin with, and that can only be done if you can justify the racism that leads to slavery. It might make sense if you accept the premise of human beings as property, which you obviously do. You then take the completely disingenuous position of justifying the treatment of slaves as you would any other piece of property, be it livestock, your tools such as a plow or a horse, or even the furniture in your home. There is no logical justification for racism, and slavery relies on racism for it's own justification.

    Slavery in America, was the logical extreme of racism. If white supremacy is the desired outcome, then subjugating the black man was vital to making that happen. Slavery was obviously the cheapest form of labor, and the slave had to be cast as subhuman. That makes slavery possible. We can't justify enslaving another human being, so the slave is cast as not being fully human. When that premise is accepted, it becomes the justification for slavery. In fact, the constitution refers to them as 3/5 of a human being. White Supremacy and racism is foundational to America. It’s codified in our constitution.

    Article I Sec. 2.(basing a state’s representation in the House on its Free population and 3/5 of all other persons)
    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
     
  7. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ask Rushton.

     
  8. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LoL. Are you actually functioning?

    Saying slaves weren't routinely beaten/killed/etc., because they were property and people do not usually destroy property isn't a justification for slavery.

    No one with half a brain would come to that conclusion.

    Your ahistoricity is also hilarious; slavery wasn't an outgrowth of racism; racism was an outgrowth of slavery.

    Not only can't you read but I question if your mind can fully function.
     
  9. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That wasn't the question or related to the line of discussion.

    But nice logical fallacies.

    I posted studies on regression toward the mean and early racial cognitive differences that had no direct relation to r/K theory.

    Obviously, you haven't bothered to address the actual studies.

    Get back to me when you can.
     
  10. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah. But apparently this is going over your head.

    And yet you think that it makes sense.""Most of the time, people don't want their property damaged, hence the analogy. Makes perfect sense to me." This makes perfect sense to you?? The only way that you can come to that conclusion is if you accept the position of slavery to begin with. Human beings aren't property. There is no logical or moral justification for slavery. And yet you think that most of the time people don't want their property damaged, so the analogy makes perfect sense to you? Are you functioning?

    Then explain to me how you can say this; ""Most of the time, people don't want their property damaged, hence the analogy. Makes perfect sense to me." How does this make sense to you with regards to slavery?

    :roflol: No it wasn't. That's really stupid of you. How on earth can you justify slavery without first seeing the person that you're enslaving as less then you? Racial superiority is the root of slavery. Slaves were just primitive subhumans. They were equivalent to livestock. White superiority was always assumed. When they opted to capture slaves, it was because blacks were already seen to be inferior as a race. You don't get this do you? How can you justify enslaving people that you see as your equal?

    And your ability to reason is totally absent. You attempt to find logic in an emotion like prejudice, when logic has no prejudice and isn't based on emotion. When that is pointed out to you, you jump to the next absurdity, such as racism as a result of slavery, rather then understanding that racism was necessary for slavery to exist. That's what justified it. Then you find that when a racist congressman states makes an asinine statement regarding the treatment of slaves, you find that most of the time, people don't want their property damaged, hence the analogy. Makes perfect sense to me.", while failing to recognize that people aren't property so the analogy only makes sense to another racist. Your response Pre-supposes that slavery is acceptable as a prior condition.

    Finally, you're only response is to hurl insults, which is typical of the person with no reasoned or rational response. :applause: Bravo. You've already had one post deleted for insults. Care to try for two?
     
  11. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  12. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Discredited as in Blacks are matching Whites in cognitive testing?
     
  13. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes, it makes perfect sense. People don't destroy their property; people, therefore, won't destroy their slaves.

    What don't you understand about that?

    Only someone with less than half a brain would take the above argument and turn it around as a justification for slavery.
     
  14. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Rushton's theory of racial hierarchies in intelligence was certainly discredited and does qualify as scientific racism, a form of pseudoscience. It is widely accepted in the scientific community that group differences in IQ are entirely caused by the environment and are not immutable. Racialist hereditarians have an ideological agenda for seeking a genetic explanation.


    It's common knowledge that slaves were beaten, tortured and killed by ruthless slave masters for being disobedient or not living up to the slave master's expectations. Slavery is a crime against humanity and it is racist and sickening that any one would try to rationalize or sugar-coat the horrors of American slavery. They weren't treated as property in the way one would treat a valuable inanimate object. White slave masters denigrated their Black slaves deeming them racially inferior knowing full well they were fellow human beings and subjected them to a lot of psychological and physical abuse in order to force them to submit to the way of life they had created for them.
     
  15. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I understand perfectly what you're trying to say. Obviously what YOU don't understand is that you're offering a circular argument. An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

    Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion...and I reject the concept of slavery and humans as property as either logically or morally justifiable), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Which I do. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

    P1. People don't destroy their property;
    P2. Slaves are property
    ____________________________________
    C; therefore people won't destroy their slaves.

    That might make sense to a person that accepts slavery and humans as property, as legitimate to begin with. You take an illegitimate concept to make your argument. You have to accept the premise of slaves as property for your argument to "make perfect sense". The second premise; that slaves (and slavery altogether) as property is rejected as an institution was demonstrated in the 1800's. There is no moral or logical justification for the second premise as being true.

    P1. Slaves are property (T)
    P2. Humans are not property (T)
    ________________________
    C: therefore, humans cannot be slaves. (T)

    P1. Human beings have inalienable individual rights (T)
    P2. Slaves have no inalienable individual rights. (T)
    _____________________________________
    C: therefore; Slaves are not human beings. (T)

    P1. All men are created equal (T)
    P2. Slaves are not equal (T)
    _________________________
    C: therefore; slaves are not men (T)

    These are valid arguments.

    Basic rules of critical thinking state:

    1.To say an argument is valid, is to say: It would be impossible for all the premises to be true, but the conclusion false.

    2.To say an argument is valid is to say: If the premises are true, the conclusion would have to be true.

    I get that this is not your strong point. Maybe a little study of how to construct a valid and sound argument will help you in the future.
     
  16. cjm2003ca

    cjm2003ca Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    3,648
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    how is the violence in detroit working out for you?..its such a safe and loving city with no problems..tons of jobs..housing is really beautiful and plentiful...low crime rate..very few murders too i hear...
     
  17. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Our friend here seems to think that racism is the outgrowth of slavery, rather than the other way around. Commercial slavery in North America was justifiable by a racist idea that the African was subhuman to begin with. This was not the slavery of a conquered tribe in ancient Biblical times. It was completely race based and motivated by commercial enterprise. These people were kidnapped, not conquered. You cannot enslave a person that is your equal. And the black man was never considered an equal in a society that insisted on White Supremacy. The black man was considered less than equal and only fit to serve the interests of their white masters. It was racism that justified slavery.
     
  18. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We're not talking Rushton, although he certainly has not been discredited.

    Every cognitive test devised, controlling for any environmental factors conceived, has shown differences in ability between Whites, Blacks and Asians.

    Even Black babies, as Rushton points out, are born more mature than White babies than East Asian babies.

    In fact, I started this thread about providing countervailing evidence Blacks, Whites and East Asians having differential cognitive ability.

    You may have seen it, so why don't you provide your IQ data, general intelligence tests, backward digit span tasks or any other form of cognitive ability showing Blacks, Whites and East Asians have the same ability?

    I said the analogy was logical, even if it fails in practice.

    Anyway, that is certainly far off from anyone with less than half a brain claiming an analogy which is logical regarding the treatment of slaves is the same as justifying slavery.

    Not that I care about such an accusation, but that such a person's mind is so malfunctioning they cannot even comprehend properly poisons discussion and needs pointing out.
     
  19. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    He certainly has:

    [video=youtube;zF9hOY6OzoQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF9hOY6OzoQ[/video]

    [video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]

    That's not true. Controlling for family and neighborhood quality along with standard Socioeconomic variables eliminated the IQ gap between Blacks and Whites.

    There are conflicting reports on that claim.

    See: Cognitive Development in Infancy by John Oates and Sue Sheldon p. 27

    Rushton selectively cites this data to support his Life History Theory which was discredited.

    See: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory 2002; 2; 131


    I've already directed you to the research of Richard Nisbett showing that the Black-White IQ gap is caused by environment.
     
  20. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LoL. As is if Nisbett's arguments aren't refuted.

    He has shown to omit data by Rushton and others:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/nisbe...-in-reading-and-mathematics-over-five-decades

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/advocacy-by-omission-richard-e-nisbetts-intelligence-and-how-to-get-it

    Some 'scholar' you have; might as well go back to the frauds Stephen Jay Gould, Lieberman and Franz Boas.

    Neighborhood, family and socio-economic variables were controlled in the Minnesota Transracial adoption study: the IQ/racial hierarchy followed as White, mulatto, Black.
     
  21. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No, they weren't refuted.

    That study was methodologically flawed as admitted by its own authors.

    The study to which Rushton and Jensen (2005) allocate so much space is the
    single adoption study that provides any support whatever to the hereditarian
    position. This is a study by Scarr and Weinberg (1976; Weinberg, Scarr, &
    Waldman, 1992), which examined adoptees into White families who had two
    White biological parents, two Black biological parents, or one Black and one
    White parent. The study is more difficult to interpret than the other two, one of

    which assigns Black children, who were probably equivalent in expected IQ, to
    either Black or White middle-class families and the other of which assigns both
    Black and White children to the same environment. The Scarr and Weinberg study
    held neither race nor expected IQ nor adoptive setting constant. An additional
    problem with the Scarr and Weinberg study is that the Black children were
    adopted at a later age than the others, which would prompt an assumption of lower
    initial IQ for them. In addition, the Black children’s mothers had lower educational
    levels than did those of the other two groups, which also would prompt an
    assumption of lower initial IQ. Finally, the “quality of placement” was higher for
    White children than for other children. All of these facts combined mean that it
    is not possible to know what to predict under either a hereditarian model or a pure
    environmental model.

    The average IQ of the White children at age 7 to 8 years was 112, that of
    mixed-race children 109, and that of Black children 97. The results are consistent
    with the assumption that the middle-class family environment resulted in a
    substantial gain in IQ for all groups. They do not rule out a genetic contribution
    to explain the gap because the Black children had lower IQs than those of either
    of the other two groups. Because of the likelihood that the Black children had
    lower IQs to begin with, for both genetic and nongenetic reasons, however, the
    results do not give strong support to the hereditarian model. At age 17 the White
    children had IQs (as measured by another test) of 106, the mixed-race children 99,
    and the Black children 89. These results are not materially different, in terms of
    size of the gap, from those at age 7 to 8. The Black children at the earlier point
    had IQs 15 points lower than those of the White children and at the later point had
    IQs 17 points lower. The gap was 3 points at age 7 to 8 between White children
    and mixed-race children and 7 points at age 17.

    Rushton and Jensen (2005), however, wish to emphasize the relative difference
    at the two ages. Because the genetic influence on IQ asserts itself progressively
    over the life span, they maintain that the greater gap at the later age is
    reflective of a genetic contribution to the gap. In fact, Rushton and Jensen give as
    one of their main reasons for reviewing the Scarr and Weinberg study in such
    depth is that it continues out to the older ages (the other two reasons being that it
    is the “largest” and “best-known”). There are several flaws with the developmental
    argument. First, the relative magnitude of differences at the two ages are slight,
    and second, and more important, the life span data that Rushton and Jensen
    themselves cite do not support the claim that more of the IQ variance at age 17
    is genetically driven than at earlier ages. Evidence of a greater genetic contribution
    to IQ occurs only after the age of 20 (see their Figure 3). Finally, Weinberg
    et al. (1992) noted that the scores of the adolescent Black and mixed-race children
    have to be interpreted in light of the fact that these children as a group had severe
    adjustment problems, a fact that Rushton and Jensen do not mention.
    The Scarr and Weinberg study thus provides nothing more definite than the
    likelihood that middle-class environments raise the IQs of children of all racial
    combinations. Many aspects of design weakness have to be overlooked to infer
    any support at all for the hereditarian model.


    Source: HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310
     
  22. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sure...but your own link shows the lion share of studies show differences in maturation between White and Black infants; the specific study was contended rather than the overall notion of Black and White cognitive differentials in infancy.

    You can also see this study on Nigerian babies attaining 12 neuro-cognitive milestones at an earlier stage than the control (White) cohort.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1714693?dopt=Abstract

    And Blacks gestational length is a week shorter than White gestational length:

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/107.full

    Asians are also a week shorter; however, the report does not seem to provide a breakdown by ethnicity, but that this sample was conducted in London, it is likely the Asian cohort was mostly of sub-continent heritage.
     
  23. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So what are the IQ's of children adopted to middle and high income families in adulthood?

    Surely not another sin of omission?

    And why the silence on Nisbett's many omissions?

    Rushton has highlighted concrete examples where Nisbett omits data when drawing conclusions.

    Pretty damning, really.
     
  24. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Nisbett didn't omit anything Rushton simply chose to cite other examples supporting his position and then claimed Nisbett "omitted" this evidence from his research. What about Rushton's blatant distortions of the research of other scholars? Why the silence on that?
     
  25. Adagio

    Adagio New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It seems that we're dealing with a person that is desperate to use scientific racism as a justification for his own attitudes. It can't be justified through logic or even morality...so lets toss genetics and biology into the mix. We can provide falsified theories and deny they've been falsified. My data v your data. And of course the truth suffers as a consequence.
     

Share This Page