Why are Proponents of Scientific Racism Afraid to Debate in an Academic Setting?

“The hero and the coward both feel the same thing, but the hero uses his fear, projects it onto his opponent, while the coward runs. It's the same thing, fear, but it's what you do with it that matters." - Cus D'Amato

"I will not attend Prof. Graves's lecture, because I don't want to give the impression that my presentation is a response to his. The overlap between our topics is marginal." - Charles Murray

"There was no debate, although Murray was offered the opportunity for one by Williams Debating Society. At first he agreed, and then he reneged. After his talk I offered him an opportunity to debate me on his claims at/in any venue of his choosing. He refused again, stating he would agree after another five years. The five years are in the hope of the appearance of better genomic studies to buttress his claims." - Joseph Graves





Proponents of Scientific Racism have filled this sub-forum with threads and posts promoting the claim that "Race-Realism" (Scientific Racism) is a legitimate scientific topic and there is good research which validates the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence that can be measured by IQ score and strongly predict life outcomes including a person's mental ability, personality, character, academic performance, law-abidingness, moral values and sexual behavior.

Basically a numerical score is a good predictor of whether you will be a genius capable of being anything you want to be or a retard and anything in between from janitor to neurosurgeon and your racial background is a strong predictor of whether or not you will become a violent criminal capable of the most savage and debased acts imaginable. These characteristics are racially-ordained and anyone who does not fit these stereotypes is an exception to the rule. So Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer are criminally insane individuals, Neil Degrasse Tyson and Barack Obama are statistical outliers (tamed by Caucasian genes) and Mike Tyson and OJ Simpson are prime examples of how members of their race typically behave.

One issue that has been overlooked in this debate is the subject of credibility. Who among your sources is a trustworthy scholar with a good reputation? After all there is a lot of trash out there (pseudoscience) that get pass off as legitimate scientific research that has been thoroughly discredited. How does a champion of science behave? Do they welcome all challengers to their views and try their best to maintain their reputation as a legitimate source on a subject or do they tuck their tail and run at the first sign of a tough challenge and make excuses.

The quote by Charles Murray is an excuse. If he became aware of Joseph Graves, was invited to debate him and when confronted declined a challenge to debate at a venue of his choosing then he ducked the debate. This is intellectual cowardice. Waiting for advances in genomic research is unacceptable. If you published your work in the mid-1990s there is no reason why you can't discuss it now. James Watson declined to appear on a television special about race and intelligence after being asked for an interview admitted he was not qualified to speak at after being forced to resign from his position as President of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, in response to his comments about being "gloomy about African intelligence" sold his Nobel Prize medal for co-discovering DNA for millions of dollars.




Here is an open challenge to racialists. Find me a supporter of your views who has actually debated in an academic setting in the last 5 years. If none can be found then produce one. Email or contact a scholar any way you can who is willing to debate. I don't care who they debate whether it is Graves or anyone else qualified to speak on the topic (e.g. an intelligence researcher or expert on human genetics who has conducted research relevant to this discussion). The Rushton debates are old. Rushton and Jensen are dead. Is there no other champion of your cause with the courage to actually debate in a proper arena?

With professional camera work and power point presentations there is no reason why we can't get a quality debate of this kind to happen. If Creationists can debate Evolutionary Biologists then why can't you find someone? Find them so we can help set this debate up. The excuses of Murray (Logical Fallacy: Galileo Gambit) must come to an end.

PSEUDOSCIENCE persuades using misinformation, appeals to widespread belief, rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation, rather than presenting valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars, and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the “Galileo Argument.” This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries … therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! What is more, anyone who has ever heard of Galileo must be aware that Galileo’s ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. It was the established religion which rejected Galileo’s findings, preferring instead a familiar pseudoscience which Galileo’s findings contradicted. Pseudoscientists are fond of the term “proof,” as in, “I'll pay anyone $10,000 if they can prove Bigfoot does not exist!” Or, “ ...if you can prove the earth revolves around the sun,” or “ ...if you can prove that at least some UFOs are not spacecraft from other worlds.” The money is safe, because the concept of a “proof” comes from mathematics and formal logic, and has no counterpart in any description of things, phenomena and processes in our real world. A late-20th-Century magician and mentalist offered $10,000 to anyone who can prove that hypnosis exists. He's in no danger of having to pay up, but his money would be just as secure if he offered $10,000 to anyone who can prove that hypnosis does not exist!

- Rory Coker

 

Topic of proposed debate aside ... the hostile and dangerous enviroment created by liberal academia presents the obstactle. Why do you suppose the term fascism has become so prevalent recently? It's pretty disingenuous to extend and invitation for debate, knowing full well the mob won't stand for it.

 

All you need is a professional camera crew, a moderator, and equipment for a power point presentation. There doesn't even need to be a crowd. You could have a small audience of students, press, faculty and security with televised, screened questions like a town hall meeting. This could easily be set up with the right people. The excuses simply need to end.

I recently saw a press conference for UFC 229 an MMA Pay-Per-View where to fighters involved in an altercation that resulted in life-threatening property damage, injuries and criminal charges was able to take place with the necessary precautions to avoid a riot and a brawl (no crowd, press only, armed police officers at the staredown).



These are professional scholars living in 2018 that we are talking about. I don't care how much control you think the liberal media has. They can set this up and have a proper debate.

 

UFC / MMA? Berkeley ... weekly.

 

The term "scientific racism" is an oxymoron in the same vein as "intelligent design".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

There is no scientific data that supports the misbegotten BELIEFS, fallacious ASSUMPTIONS, baseless PREJUDICES and odious BIGOTRY that defines racism.

Without any factual data there is nothing to debate.

Racism, scientific or otherwise, is morally repugnant and a violation of individual Constitutional rights.

Furthermore there is NO CONSENSUS amongst scientists as to the actual definition of "race" as far as humanity is concerned. Visible morphological variations have as much significance as regional accents do within a common language.

Little wonder that there is no one willing to be publicly exposed as a proponent of racism if they value having a legitimate career in science.

 

Graves offered a debate at any venue of Murray's choosing. You don't need a college campus or the mainstream media to even cover it. Just a professional set up and a video uploaded to the internet will do. The UFC video is only an example of how to control a venue where the situation could potentially become hostile. Rushton and Suzuki debated in front of a large auditorium and you have to consider that this was 1989 and Rushton was facing potentially criminal charges because his theories violated Canada's Laws on hate speech.



You can have a debate like this at a venue with tight security where scholars can debate without vicious mobs of antifa protestors or # BlackLivesMatter or whoever else you think is going to ruin the event will appear.

 

1st reply ... "topic aside". Liberals created a toxic enviroment. Debate died with civility and decorum. Polarized echo chambers is what you're left with.

 

Liberals created a toxic environment on race-relations?



Don't make excuses. If you want a viewpoint heard find a representative and a venue.

 

I've just done that. My viewpoint is that liberal academia is no longer a suitable medium for debate. By design. I've chosen my venue, and I've represented myself. I've zero interest in in finding a common denominator by which to gauge the probability of stupidity. I do that based on interaction, and on an individual basis. My point is that academia isn't the "laboratory" it should be. Academia doesn't provide a "clinical enviroment" for experimentation, or exploration.

 

AKA the alt right denigrating and disparaging Academia because they can't compete on an equal footing owing to their self-imposed disdain for obtaining an education.

 

You think this ones a winner for ya huh? Anything relevant to topic in that lightly veiled ad hominem tirade? I guess if liberal mosh pits, formerly considered places of higher learning, were more hospitable to opposing views there'd be more debate. Of course saying so has already earned me my morning dose of sanctimonious fascism ... hasn't it professor ...

 

Thank you for proving my point!

 

You might want to use caps to highlight your POINT ... because I'm surely not going to be the only one who doesn't think you made one. The usual "alt-right" spam you treat the forum to, doesn't rank as a POINT professor. You in fact made my POINT ... perfectly demonstrating pseudo-intellectual fascism at work. I could submit my observations of your neo-fascism as part of a doctoral thesis on the subject, and expect to receive high marks.

 

I rest my case since you have once again made my point, albeit unwittingly, as you so readily acknowledge above!

 

No ... you've run from another shellacking ... that's why I asked if you thought "this one's a winner for ya" ... ::

 

Impossible for there to be "another" given that there has never been a "first"!

 

I really don't want to explore your self aggrandizing egotism. You're a great example of pseudo-intellectuals who mistakenly believes that they "represent" academia, when in fact they "represent" what's wrong with academia. You routinely try to shout down opposition, and punctuate your "arguments" with inflamatory, defamatory, off topic remarks. One only has to watch the news to see academia's fascism, and the course syllabi that's being introduced on liberal campus appallingly promotes it. If you'd like to defend your liberal alma mater then do it. I have all day to counter with examples academia's intolerance and fascism.

 

Alt right hissyfit duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Yes ... those reasons are denial, and yesterdays shellacking on FBI background checks. The FBI is conducting a week long "supplimental" background check BTW. 'Course criminal behavior isn't anything they'll be exploring ...

 

Only a gullible shellack-shocked fool would believe that an FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into assault and rape is the equivalent of a routine background check.

 

Do you refute Trump authorized a supplimental background check of limited scope, and duration? Do you deny that the supplimental background check will examine criminal behavior? Do you positively state the FBI has initiated a seperate criminal investigation -vs- supplimental background check? Pick your poision.

 

Semantic quibbling duly noted for the record.

Do you DENY that the FBI is now INVESTIGATING allegations of CRIMES, such as assault and rape, committed by Kavanaugh?

 

Yes I do. There is no criminal complaint.

 

So assaulting, molesting and attempting to rape is NOT criminal according to the alt right?

 

NO ... according to YOU the FBI doesn't investigate criminal behavior when conducting background checks. This 1 week extension of that background check therefore does not include criminal behavior, per your own insistence. I appreciate that your so desperate to avoid a shellacking on academia, that you'd prefer to compound the previous. But out of consideration for the OP, we should return to the other thread.