Republican: Yes, We're Racist

I see. Does that make them more fraudulent than Christian frauds, or Baptist frauds, or Aryan frauds? What does their being Jewish have to do with it? Why does that matter?

.

Is that what you do? Add up all the Jewish Frauds to satisfy your view of Jews? So you have a view of Jews in general as frauds? I find it really hard to believe that you count all the frauds in the world and keep a running tally of what race or ethnicity they are. I don't think you're aware of it but you're using inductive reasoning to draw a general conclusion, and then presenting it as fact. I think that it's probably pretty likely that you find that most people that disagree with you present what you'd consider to be a fraudulent argument or claim. Especially if they happen to be Jewish.

 

Ok. I can go with that. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd be interested in knowing a few Republicans that don't place States Rights over Civil Rights. I am talking about today's Republicans. Not those of 50 years ago.

 

Why are they classified as "Jewish frauds"? What does their being Jewish have to do with it?

Yes. It is. But I really don't think you're equipped to understand that.

And you don't think that you slander Jews when you come up with this...I don't even know what to call it...I guess crap works as well as anything. I think you'd have fit right in, in 1930's Germany. "Jewishness"?? "Jewish Communist Frauds". First call them frauds, then classify them as Jewish?? You're an anti-Semite aren't you? I haven't seen one of your species in a long time. A real dyed in the wool anti-Semite.

 

There are many, the difference is which rights you consider. That goes both ways. There exists no clear states rights vs. civil rights in our country, except on a few case by case basis. There are some cases when Democrats are big proponents of state rights over Civil rights, most often when it comes to gun rights and certain unpopular speech (granted, Nazi rallies aren't popular with either party and to my knowledge most members of both parties are generally willing to overlook free speech rights when it comes to such events).

The other side that's buried in such an oversimplification is that often when you support one civil right you trample another, and so it is often civil rights vs. civil rights. I think most recently big in the news has been the Civil Rights Act, which tramples property rights in favor of equal access and freedom from discrimination.

 

'Anti-Semitism', 'Nazi Holocaust', blah blah blah. Is this supposed to change the fact that Jews are greatly overrepresented among anthropology frauds?

 

,

Can you give me an example?

I don't see how this enters into a preference for States Rights over Civil Rights? Nazi rallies would be a Civil Rights issue. Not a States Rights issue. The ACLU protected the Nazi's in a such a case. And gun rights? How do Democrats support a states rights issue there? You'll need to explain to me how Democrats support States Rights in any situation over Civil Rights. Because I don't see any examples and as a liberal that tends to vote Democratic, I can't think of one.

I don't think that's true. Civil Rights involves equal protection under the law. Nobody has a right to deny that to anybody else, so they can't make a legitimate case that their rights have been trampled. Who's rights are being denied by the protection of anybody's civil rights?

That's not a legitimate example. The owner of a business may have his personal attitudes about certain people, and who he chooses as his friends, but as a business he's licensed by the state, and has no right to deny anybody access to the economy because of his prejudice. The state is prohibited from licensing discrimination in participating in commerce or the economy of this country. It's a completely false assumption. What you're offering here is a justification for discrimination. So, if you don't want to serve blacks at your restaurant or sell them goods from your store, you seem to think you have some kind of right to do that. You don't. The money is the same color. The Civil Rights Act used the Commerce clause to justify it's action. There is no right that any business has to deny services to people based on some racial or other form of discrimination. You're pleading a case for a right that you don't have. Your property rights have to do with your private property. Not your business. You have no right to deny access to business.

 

First of all, do you have some kind of quota for who can become an anthropologist? Secondly your offering a circular argument. In order for it to make any sense, we must accept your claim that anthropology frauds is demonstrated as being true and that Jews involved in anthropology are frauds because you say they are. An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove, which is what you're doing. 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. So you're using a logical fallacy to make your case. That alone blows up your argument.

Blah blah blah.??? Are you into Holocaust denial? You certainly are presenting yourself as an anti-Semite and a racist. Is this some kind of defense that you've come up with to live with your own particular hate for Jews, and blacks? You seem to have a problem with Jews that might have become anthropologists. You actually think that they are "over represented in that field, as if their being Jews is the issue for you. And of course you label them as Jewish frauds. Not just frauds, but Jewish frauds. You've got a lot of rage inside you man.

 

I don't know much about North Carolina but I can tell an alcoholic by looking at him. That guy is drunk.

 

Jews and Black African people have both received systemic alienation and oppression at the hands of Christian Europeans. That by itself wouldn't guarantee solidarity between these groups (in fact violence and racism against African immigrants in Israel is rampant, which goes to show you Jews don't all think alike), but at the same time it shouldn't surprise anyone that some liberals of Jewish heritage see common ground with Africans.

 

LoL. So you want me to prove a negative?

Go ahead and show where Nisbett addresses adult IQ vis-a-vis adoption studies or the Korean adoption studies in Belgium, Netherlands and the US.

http://humanvarieties.org/2013/02/16/gildea-1992-a-lost-iq-study-of-transracially-adopted-koreans/

While you're at it, please explain how poverty or discrimination would affect a person's ability to recite numbers backwards, as there is a significant gap between Whites and Blacks in backward digit span tests.

 

Why do Jewish Europeans have significantly higher IQ than Gentile Europeans or Middle Eastern Jews - both groups having experienced far less 'discrimination' than European Jews?

 

Weren't European Jews once regulated to careers like money-lending that were off-limits to Christians? That was of course a consequence of their religious persecution, but ironically it proved lucrative enough to enhance their socioeconomic status. It's a different sort of discrimination from what Africans experienced at the hands of the West.

 

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.

Just because Nisbett doesn't mention a study doesn't mean he omitted it from his research. You would have to prove Nisbett was aware of the study and deliberately didn't address it for you (or Rushton's) point to be valid.

I asked Nisbett about backward digit span testing once. He said that they require concentration which can be enhanced by motivation and that studies have shown that Blacks offered a reward for doing well on the test showed improved test scores. Environmental inequality can impact many aspects of brain function including concentration.

 

I'm laughing so much at this. How can a statistical overrepresentation be 'circular'? It's based on simply counting, not on 'premises'. What are the 'premises'? Either anthropological frauds are disproportionately Jewish or they aren't, which you establish by counting, not logical deduction. Is it possible that, somewhat ironically, you are making a completely fraudulent (and hilariously facile) objection? Are you familiar with race related anthropology? Can you name some prominent Jews in the field? If not I will be happy to educate you.

Blah blah blah "STOP THE HATE" etc. Are Jews overepresented in academic fraud or not? It's a factual question, my assumed feelings are irrelevant.

 

And that has what to do with IQ, reaction time tests, backward digit span tasks, etc.?

 

LoL. So Nisbett isn't aware of well known studies on adult IQ being around 80% heritable?

Apparently he's incompetent.

Care to cite the studies to which Nisbett is referring?

By how much did Black scores improve? What about White scores - was there similar improvement?

Oh, and did the study actually 'environmental inequality' impact scores, or is this your extrapolation?

 

LoL.

Do you have a bad case of selective reading?

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

And no, your link didn't come close to saying the motor skills African children develop earlier than Whites is a result of different parenting styles.

It's funny that African American children develop earlier than White American children, similar to Nigerian infants...because culture. LoL:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3293732

Wanna take bets whether White infants develop motor skills earlier than East Asian infants?

Because culture too, right?

 

You mean there have been tests comparing European Jews' IQ, reaction time, etc. to Middle Eastern Jews and non-Jewish Europeans?

 

I wonder if they test Baptists with Southern Baptists. And is there a test that showed the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims? Have they tested blue eyed people v brown eyed, or left handed v right handed? It seems that there are people that would have us test the most nuanced discrepancies to prove a theory. But the problem with that is that no theory is ever proved. Theories however can be falsified. And when they are, the next demand is that the test didn't include whether it was conducted in the morning or afternoon, or was it sunny that day or raining. And if it wasn't seen as relevant, then the theorist will simply tell you that it was overlooked. Our theories aren't rational because we can justify them. They're rational because we can criticize them. You can't prove a theory because it involves inductive reasoning and that never proves a theory.

 

This post seems to mainly consist of two things:

1) Gratuituous 'I am the winner you are stupid/illogical/prejudiced/immoral' type comments.
2) Attacking a strawman that I am claiming that Jews shouldn't be represented in anthropology, which I have not stated either way, rather than what I am saying which is that anthropologists established as frauds have been disproportionately Jewish.

Instead of wasting everybody's time with this garbage how about we put some names and numbers on the table? How about it? I can if you can't.

That wouldn't be a 'circular argument' it would be a factual inaccuracy assuming you actually engaged on its accuracy rather than typing reams of irrelevant garbage.

 

That's your characterization of your position. Are you a stupid/illogical/prejudiced/immoral' type? That's for others to decide. As for the second part of your ridiculous denial, this; " anthropologists established as frauds have been disproportionately Jewish", is an anti-Semitic comment which of course is racist. What does being Jewish have to do with what you consider to be fraud? You're targeting Jews. You haven't even demonstrated that fraud exists, and you're attributing this alleged fraud disproportionately to Jews.

I don't care how many names you put up, you still won't be able to demonstrate fraud let alone that there exists some disproportionality in place. You'll be guilty of a Hasty Generalization. A hasty generalization draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case.

P1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.
___________________________
C. Therefore: Christians / atheists are grouches.

(1) Jay Gould is a Jewish anthropologist
(2) Jay Gould is a fraud
_________________________________
C; therefore, Jewish Communist anthropologists are frauds and overrepresented in anthropology.

I don't even know if Gould is Jewish, and if he is, why that would matter. I have no evidence other than your claim that he's a fraud. And there is no evidence to show an overrepresentation of Jews in the field of anthropology, when you would have to examine the total number of anthropologists in the world, and then know what religion or ethnicity they are and THEN prove that this has any bearing on anything that you have an issue with. It's pure anti-Semitism in play.

Of course it is. You're assuming the truth of a conclusion offered in your premise which you haven't demonstrated as true in order to come to the conclusion. The fact that you don't see this, is a result of one of two possibilities. You have a weakness in logic, or you're simply in denial. You haven't proven that a "long line of Jewish Communist frauds" even exists outside of your own prejudice toward Jews. You offer that as your premise with the conclusion that these Jewish Communist frauds are somehow overrepresented in the field of anthropology.

I wouldn't have to type reams of anything if you were able to grasp the fact that your position is transparent and dismissed as anti-Semitic BS.

 

I'd like to clear up some misconceptions about Stephen Jay Gould. First of all it is true that his parents were of Jewish descent. He grew up in a secular Jewish home but he didn't practice religion. Gould's father was a Marxist but not Gould himself so calling him a communist is a slanderous accusation. Calling him a fraud is simply name-calling and nothing else. The basis for considering his work fraudulent is a recent study by some Anthropologists who claim that Gould made errors in his re-calculation of Samuel George Morton's data on cranial capacity. It is noteworthy that the authors themselves, one of whom I emailed, do not write Gould off as a fraud although they state that some of his other work has received similar criticism.

From: Jason Lewis [jason.lewis@rutgers.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 15:05
To: EgalitarianJay02
Cc: degusta@berkeley.edu; Marc Meyer; Janet Monge; Alan E. Mann; Ralph L. Holloway
Subject: Re: Do you consider Gould to be a fraud?

Good day EgalitarianJay02,

Thank you for your interest in this work and your questions. Firstly, I would greatly appreciate it if you could send along some links to websites that you describe as "using this article to claim that Morton's work confirmed racial hierarchies in brain size and intelligence". I have been trying to monitor the blogosphere for potential misunderstanding or misuse of our work, and haven't really come across anything like that, so would like to see what you are referring to.

As for your specific questions:

1) Do you consider Gould to have been a credible scholar (vs. a fraud)?: In the PLOS Biology article, the coauthors and I obviously didn't want to commit the same offense that we are demonstrating that Gould did, namely making accusations of bias and fraud against deceased scholars. What we do show is that at least his work on Morton was riddle with errors and some (we didn't have time to go into all of them in the PLOS piece, we will publish a longer and more detailed version soon) could only be interpreted as either very, very sloppy scholarship, intense bias, or intentional misconduct. As our data are only relevant to the Morton case, I can't go beyond that to say whether Gould was an overall fraud vs. a credible scholar (e.g. I have little reason to doubt his measurements of shells), but a growing number of people are taking a second look at much of his body of work and finding similar inconsistencies or problems. An article by Will Saletan will be coming out in a month in Discover Magazine addressing exactly that issue. So, we will have to decide as an entire academic community, after all of his work has received a similar amount of detailed reanalysis, whether Gould was a 'fraud', but at least we know for now that there are some factual reasons to look into it in the first place.

2) What is your personal opinion on the use of cranial capacity and brain size to claim racial differences in intelligence?: As we state in the article, there is no reason to believe that cranial capacity is highly correlated with intelligence. Morton did not believe so; Gould invents that as a reason to use Morton's work as a straw man. Personally, I don't even know if what we measure as intelligence today is an appropriate measure of 'cognitive capacity', which is what we are really after. In any case, I in no way endorse the idea of racial differences in intelligence, nor using any measure, whether they be cranial capacities, brain sizes, or even IQ scores themselves, to claim such differences. Again, as we stated in the article, neither did Morton. His purpose in measuring skulls and reporting data was to show that the groups of humans around the world were created separately by God, in order to work around the Biblical discrepancy of 'if we are all descended from Adam and Eve 4,000 years ago, how did we all come to look so different?'.

I hope this helps you with your personal research. If you have any further questions or comments, please let me know...


Yours,
Jason Lewis
Department of Anthropology
and Center for Human Evolutionary Studies
202 Ruth Adams Building
Douglass Campus
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
office: 732-932-9886
cell: 650-796-8445

The paper in question was reviewed in the Journal Nature which states that the majority of Gould's work was left unscathed by the authors. Furthermore since they didn't remeasure all of Morton's skulls they can't say with certainty that the average cranial capacities that Morton reported represent his sample accurately. The review also cautions that the authors of the study may have their own motivations for their conclusions as they are associated with the University of Pennsylvania who have an interest in seeing Morton's skull collection freed from the stigma of bias.

Now as far as Mikemikev's charge of fraud by "Jewish Communist Anthropologists" is concerned it is clearly an antisemitic comment that shouldn't be taken as a factual statement. Criticism and proof of fraud are two different things. I think it is clear that posters such as Mikemikev and Rayznack have an antisemitic agenda when they become so cynical that they put a scholar's surname in bold to point out their Jewish ancestry as if being Jewish makes one prone to fraud. This is a common tactic of White Supremacists who deem all people of Jewish descent to be dishonest and play a game of "Name the Jew" when they encounter a Jewish person in a discussion. Such behavior is a blatant Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack which should be beneath debaters who expect to be taken seriously.

 

Too bad you can't figure out Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are ethnic groups, unlike Orthodox and Reform Jews.

And yes, Jewish ethnic groups have different IQ:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/07/jewish-intelligence/