Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

Have you seen this:

https://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html

Scientific racism, holocaust denial, climate change, same tactics used by the usual suspect.

You can hit them over the head with mountains of evidence and they will ignore it and wave around idiotic "evidence" from such a cast of outrageously stupid "researchers" and "highly trained professionals".

Fact do not matter to them and never will. This is about people's intransigent hatred. Its emotional not rational.

 

I haven't but this looks like a good run down of the tactics of Holocaust Deniers and conspiracy theorists in general e.g. deny everything and question the validity of basic concepts like the way Empress tries to trivialize the significance of environmental factors by saying they are subjective. That sort of nonsense is a troll tactic designed to distract from the real argument.

Correct.

PSEUDOSCIENCE begins with a hypothesis— usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible— and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Notice how often, when you are asked by a friend about what should be a question of fact if the topic were not pseudoscience, the opening phrase is, “Do you believe in ESP?” (or flying saucers, or prophecy, or Bigfoot)... not, is the evidence good, but rather, do you believe, without raising dull questions of evidence. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate and find out what’s actually going on, or to test various possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to “congenial conclusions,” grinding ideological axes, appealing to pre-conceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. Not just Creationists, but 20th Century pseudoscientists of all flavors, from J. B. Rhine and Immanuel Velikovsky to Rupert Sheldrake, have underlying their claims and assertions an anachronistic world-view that essentially rejects all or most of the tested, reliable findings of science as “unacceptably materialistic!” The general public tends to view pseudoscientists as “mavericks” who are working slightly beyond the “accepted” boundaries of science. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Pseudoscientists invariably represent a world-view which is not simply unscientific or pre-scientific, but rather militantly antiscientific. - Rory Coker Phd

 

I'm not squabbling over anything. You're the one making claims you can't defend. I have asked how terms that are subjective can be accurately measured, and your response is increasing levels of anger. Falsely arguing I came here to argue something I wasn't arguing and then accusing me of plotting to shift the burden of proof isn't an argument.

I came here to question the validity of the sources you keep using to promote your argument.

YOUR argument is that IQ gaps are closing and that the existing one is "caused by discrimination and poverty." I have repeatedly shown that this argument is untenable, specifically citing certain of your sources your foundational argument relies on who have methodological issues if not outright honesty issues, and you continue to founder.

That's very lovely, but you're not able to defend your sources which I am specifically criticizing here who are vitally important to the core of your thesis.

Throwing a scattershot of other stuff and demanding I go through the list isn't a defense of what I've pointed out which is a serious issue with your argument. Indeed, this is a case of you moving the goal posts as a tactic, trying to jockey for the advantage because I bring up points you again cannot defend. Where have you refrained from criticizing someone's sources lest you address every single one of them first?

Answer: Never.

I know. You want to get the heat off your back and transfer it to me. It's not going to work. It's YOUR argument and YOUR sources. Defend them.

You're talking to ME in this post, not them. It would seem that your inability to defend why you keep citing sources that "prove" that 1) IQ gaps are caused by "discrimination and poverty" and that 2) the IQ gap is closing - which are your central arguments - are my shutting YOU down because you here are again backing away from defending your sources and getting personal.

You continue to struggle with being able to defend your sources.

Trolling is when your own sources are shown to be lacking, and you retreat from defending them while claiming you have interest in honest discussion about the subject. It would seem that Dickens and Flynn have now joined Nisbett as sources you cannot defend but whose work you heavily rely on to "prove" your central thesis.

Are you now going to promise you'll address criticisms of Dickens and Flynn and then stall for years?

I'm sorry, as I said before, I am not going to allow you to derail and deflect and try to "answer" my points by asking questions unrelated to my point. You've done this previously right when you begin to founder being able to answer my points and criticisms about the methods of your sources.

And now you're getting emotional and personal again, arguing in labels and dredging up everything you can think of to fling. Is this where you're going to tell me I "should be killed" for believing what I do again? You're again dropping the subject and getting into picking a personal fight.

Then why are you always unable to defend the methods and conclusions of sources you cite from critics? It would seem that your arguments heavily rely on copy-paste from emails, and when the person emailing you screws up, your argument goes down with them like the Titanic.

I am illustrating yet again a key flaw in your argument and you haven't a response.

The Dickens and Flynn model equations are derived under the assumptions of stable equilibrium and of constant genetic effects within an individual, assumptions that are perhaps more plausible for adulthood than for the early childhood years to which the authors often apply them.One way this becomes problematic is in the ambiguity about whether M in the models represents intelligence, that is, absolute level of cognitive skill, or IQ, the level of cognitive skill of an individual relative to those of his own age. This distinction is usually not very critical for adulthood; it is when considering children.

They fail to draw a CRITICAL distinction in their work. I also didn't post a Rushton criticism of the 2006 Dickens and Flynn paper which was that they left out studies that did not show a narrowing of IQ gaps.

Get out more and stop relying on the media to inform you.

I do not believe in a gassing program and I hate Hitler, nor do I associate with any of those groups you refer to. Surprise! We exist.

Too much bullshit surrounding WWII including untenable claims that crematoria - half of which weren't even functioning at any given time in Auschwitz-Birkenau - could magically cremate 3 corpses in 15 minutes non-stop for months on end. Native American "genocide"? Eh - much of that was their dying from smallpox - incidental to contact with whites. I've researched gassings in Auschwitz-Birkenau and there is no remote equivalence between that and 9-11 truther nuts. Zip. My research of that camp made me drop my previous strong conviction that people were mass gassed there.

But you seem to prefer arguing in vague generalities coupled with slurs and outbursts of anger.

 

I've never heard of most of what that article claims are typical tactics of "deniers." Laughable.

It's highly intellectual to put all of those in the same bucket. It shows your deep commitment to truth and honesty and unwillingness to run on emotional outrage or attach politics to science. I commend you sir.

 

Oh I agree - claims like "equality" are presented as if scientific fact, yet no science actually shows it. So what we have is a presentation of a racial philosophy as science.

It's still happening, but the Left is mostly behind it.

Actually, I read extensively about Auschwitz-Birkenau which is why I stopped believing in mass gassings.

Pretty sad to assume that "Jew-hatred" is necessarily behind it, but that's a straw man that seems to get mileage so why not continue on?

Assuming someone that doesn't believe in gassings necessarily hates Jews is about one of the stupidest assumptions there is.

 

Pretty much every argument being presented by the racists can be found at stormfront, most of it in easy to read format with small words for the less intellectually inclined members.

If it weren't for bigots I don't think I'd be a bigot myself.

 

You haven't researched nazi gassings, you've lapped up the crap from holocaust deniers who all rely on idiots and clowns like Leuchter, Ball, Rudolph, Barnes, Graf, Mottognolo, Faurisson, Cole and who can forget that paragon of scientific inquiry Krege.

You are a holocaust denier which makes you automatically a jew hater and nazi apologist. You can claim otherwise, You can claim some sort of academically arrived conclusion, but I know better. because I know way more than you do about holocaust denial and the "source material" conveniently concocted to support the denial.

. I've been confronting denialist clowns since Keegstra got caught teaching Zundel's Samizat pamphlet "did 6 million jews really die".

I consider holocaust denial to be nothing more than hatred badly masquerading as "scholarship". Its practitioners looking up at pond scum.

 

Yes laughable how blatant and pathetic holocaust denial truly is.

Yes all dipping into the same bucket of dialectic tactics.

My intellectual abilities in no way impinge on my extreme bigotry against holocaust denier, jew haters, neo nazis, white supremacists/nationalists, racists of all colors, religious fanatics of all kinds, commies and pedophiles. In fact, those abilities enhance and enrich my experience of them.

 

It would be a stupid assumption if I haven't had 30+ years of experience confronting holocaust deniers.

I don't assume jew hatred, I know. I am familiar with EVERY source used in holocaust denial. Its a relatively complete knowledge map since there ain't a damn new thing that the clowns have come up with in at least a decade.

 

You don't need to claim bigotry. Being against bigots makes you anti-bigotry. Believe me, I hate racists and all of those other groups with a passion. But rather than call myself anti-racist or anti-bigotry I prefer to represent something positive e.g. identifying as an Egalitarian (pro-equality). There's a difference between disliking an immoral behavior or ideology and disliking someone because of an identity or attribute that has nothing to do with their character.

 

I get where you are coming from.

OTOH, I do fit the definition of bigot. I am intolerant of those on my list. I prejudge those on my list. I make massive negative generalizations of those on my list. Frankly, I hate the basturds.(sic) It also "liberates" me to behave towards those on my list as they do towards the subjects of their bigotries. Its my own small way towards achieving karmic balance, if you will.

 

How marvelously apropos.

Science just proved scientific racism has NOTHING to do with skin color.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/skin-color-race.html?smid=re-share&_r=0

 

The study is simply saying that genetic variants for light and dark skin were present in our evolutionary lineage before the emergence of anatomically modern humans. This has little to do with Scientific Racism aside from dismissing racial categories based on skin color.

From the article:

The widespread distribution of these genes and their persistence over millenniums show that the old color lines are essentially meaningless, the scientists said. The research “dispels a biological concept of race,” Dr. Tishkoff said.

 

Er, that's what I said.

 

Oh my bad I thought that was Taxonomy26 misinterpreting yet another paper to suit his racist ideological agenda. I'm actually writing a response to him right now.

In the mean time it looks like the racists have cooled off. Are we done here?

 

I see a deliberate attempt to derail the thread here, and it's coming from you. You're actually putting your own thread to the torch. That's pretty funny.

If I am "derailing" this thread by responding to claims and sources YOU make in it, then that's another example of YOU derailing your own thread.

This really is funny.

Shh, don't ask questions to deflect from answering to your sources that I previously questioned for which you're again having difficulty defending. You were fine discussing that subject here until the moment you were stumped, at which time you suddenly cried foul, first accusing me of "shifting the burden of proof" because I apparently have a burden of proof to meet in pointing out flaws in your argument when I already provided source materials you can't answer for, and now it's "derailing the thread."

Yawn. I've seen this before.

For the record:

I have been waiting since April, 2014 for you to defend Nisbett, and now as of October, 2017 for a defense of Dickens and Flynn.

Check.

This is all garbage you hashed up right at the moment you realized I wasn't letting you off the hook for making indefensible statements regarding the alleged cause of the black/white IQ gap being "discrimination and poverty."

You have no legitimate ground in accusing me of being off topic when I was responding to assertions and sources you presented here. That makes zero sense and you know it, but it's clearly all you have.

 

Your list!

OK So you're into intolerance, bigotry, and prejudice.

Then what are you bitching about?

Do you really think it's mentally healthy to live in a bunker and attack people for questioning history and lobbing misplaced anger at them?

I'm amused by it.

 

One thing clear is that you've never honestly weighed both sides and did any footwork to discover flaws in both. I have. There is shoddy scholarship on both sides. Your attacking, extremist reaction clearly indicates you're heavily emotionally invested in the holocaust story and are intent on verbally assaulting anyone who disagrees as a means of revenging their offense because the slightest question is taken as an extremely personal affront.

I don't care.

 

So by this reasoning, if you drink Coca-Cola, you're a Confederate apologist because a Confederate officer invented the stuff.



LMAO!



Do you have any more rage-laden, snazzy caricatures for which you would like to aim at me?

 

And as I said on page one.
This whole string is Raging anti-Science BS.
The term is BS.
It seeks to Smear/snuff Anyone, now or future, no matter how good his data/science, as a 'racist' because he is one one side of a controversy.

Ever heard of any rules like that on other scientific controversies?
It's dangerous Because it's True. That's the bombshell/hari-Kiri for the PC Brownshirts

It's absolute BS and anti-Science/censorship/shout down.

again, from pg 1.

Yes, perhaps the World foremost Evolution/Genetics specialist, and author of the Standard Text 'Speciation" is wrong and a 'Racist.'

But the FACT is, if the Same taxonomic standards are used for Humans as all other creatures, we have subspecies/Races among us.

'Scientific Racists', according the OP's BS term, would also include Ernst Mayr (Father/definer) of the topic, and Sewall Wright (Pillar) of the topic, and the latter developer of 'Fst' (genetic distance measure), which NCAT 'House Scientist' Joseph Graves LIES about regularly.. as do Templeton and ten more.

+

 

My "agenda" being commenting on an assertion you made on this thread backed up by specific sources with critical methodology flaws? I know you can't answer for it, but to pretend I'm "off topic" when I replied to stuff YOU posted here is dishonesty, especially in light of that Jonsa has been posting off-topic with impunity to your delight, with his rage against "holocaust deniers" and how climate change denial equals Nazism equals anti-Semitism.

If you have difficulty defending your assertions and sources on threads, then simply refrain from making these assertions and invoking the sources to begin with rather than attacking the person that presents evidence that your argument is fundamentally invalid.

"Oh crap, I'm losing the argument" isn't a legitimate claim that someone is trolling you.

Of course you do, it's YOUR argument. I don't see you bashing Jonsa for going off-topic about the holocaust and climate change, so it is very clear to me that this outrage of yours is not sincere.

Further, how do we measure discrimination and poverty when in different places and different times, they mean different things to different people? You have not answered this, but insist you're right and that any questioning of your assertion is "trolling" and "derailing" and "racism."

I'm challenging assertions you made here on your own thread, and am challenging the validity of sources that you use. If that is too difficult for you to handle, don't make the claims and don't cite the sources. Repeated explosions of moral outrage is not a defense of your scientifically untenable claims.

Please refrain from posting about what people do on other forums because I was warned by a mod about that here and had a post deleted after we-know-who flagged it.

No bait given. I responded to claims/sources you made before you were stuck with my criticisms and then tried to ask a deflective question on another topic AFTER I responded to your previous weak claims/sources.

My experience with you is that you launch into this personal attack stuff at the precise moment when you struggle with my points per psychology. As I said, per moderators discussing someone's behavior on another forum is against the rules here and your posts are subject to deletion.

Civilized people on civilized message boards do not abandon claims they make the minute they are unable to defend them, and then try to force their opponent to discuss another idea which the person feels as if he has more scientific footing.

I don't care.

So here you're going off-topic and proudly so, again proving that your outrage over "off-topic" statements is completely false.

And repeatedly invoking the "scientific racism" card doesn't legitimize a single one of your arguments.

Blaming white people without legitimate cause is racist racial scapegoating, and you've done it on this thread with poor scientific justification. Do you repent from this false, pseudoscientific racial scapegoating?

 

You seriously think that is an analogous argument?

In order for you to understand, I'll explain because its obvious you don't see it.

Drinking coke is merely a consumer choice and there is no conscious intellectual or ideological connection to its inventor.

Being a holocaust denier REQUIRES the person to start at the conclusion and work backwards with a very conscious intellectual and ideological connection with the denialists.

It requires acceptance of a myriad of lies, distortions, exaggerations, misrepresentations wrapped in layers of fallacious logic and profound ignorance. THAT requires a certain emotional motivation. That motivation is invariably jew hate or nazi love.

Either way, regardless what deniers might want the world to believe, being a denier is a conscious choice to be a bigot.

So you see. ALL HOLOCAUST DENIERS ARE JEW HATERS AND NAZI LOVERS.

 

I applied your logic elsewhere and you rightly saw the fatal flaw in it.

Same with questioning history. I also dispute the number of claimed dead from the USSR, but I am virulently anti-Communist. The "connection" to Hitler is of your manufacture.

False. As I said before, I grew up a stringent believer in the holocaust and never questioned it, and my mother told me to never question it. Then into adulthood, I began to read both sides and compare and dig deeper, then I started to question things, specifically the claims of mass gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

People can and do come to conclusions outside of the realm of your understanding, and unfortunately your understanding is one of an extremist bunker mentality. You seem to think Hitler is going to rise from the dead if we question gassings.

You're painting a whopper of a caricature here. As I said, in my research I found shoddy scholarship on BOTH sides.

Questioning history is not bigotry, and since you already confessed to being a prejudiced bigot yourself - which is on display in this post I am responding to - what exactly do you think applying that label to others is supposed to mean when you live it daily?

False reasoning. You can either accept that individuals come to things in ways you can't necessarily understand, OR you can view them as evil monoliths from the tales of Jewish folklore.

One requires intelligence, the other does not.

 

I have no doubt that that kind of arrogant kindergarten dissmissal works in your social circle, but it doesn't work with adults.

You mistake my emotional investment for lack of intellectual investment. That is a pretty stupid thing to do, especially since the latter informed the former and not the other way around.

 

I think it very clear that from the time I posted the above response to you to the time you posted this reply - in less than one minute - you did not read my post in the least.

Next time be honest about it.

You have not intellectually invested in anything, and you clearly have not read the skeptic's side. What I see from you is hysterical emotionalism and repeated attempts to dehumanize anyone that thinks otherwise.