Poisining the well is: The race card, and the woman card are now defunct. They were played out, says the right wingers. - - - Updated - - - You CONTINUE to swap RACIST, for racism.
Yes, racism is a very meaningful term However if MEANS different things to different people in different contexts
Poisoning the Well is a logical fallacy where you bring up irrelevant adverse information up in a debate preemptively to an audience in order to discredit or ridicule what your opponent is trying to say. Rightfully bringing up an ideological bias is not Poisoning the Well and I do not fear anything that racists offer in discussion. As for the Piffer study I will give it a more in depth analysis when I offer new debates for the forum after I read my books. The difference between sprinting and intelligence is that people value intelligence more and it is considered an insult to say that someone has below average intelligence. Beyond that racists argue that Blacks are stupid, lazy, violent and hypersexual because of innate biological difference which I believe is unscientific and motivated by racist ideology. Now if you want to prove that those arguments are try be my guest but I believe the motivation for wanting to believe them is pretty clear. A lot of things have different meanings in different contexts. We have dictionaries for a reason. If there were no rules governing the meaning of words and speech one could argue that no words or ideas had meaning. Regardless of what one thinks of the definition of racism it is a commonly used word that has utility and as a concept it is a real world problem.
Yes, racism is a commonly used... And it is a useful term, and it is a real world problem But as i said it means different things to to different people in different context... And this commonly results in all sorts of arguements and confusn A guy wrote an entire book about racism and he says Or, alternatively you could consult the wiki article on racism which covers all sorts of differen racism at great length But i ask you now to clearly affirm your view that people always mean exactly the same thing when they refer to racism.
I follow the sage advice of a fellow from a terrorist region, lurve thy neighbor, and let the tortilla chips fall where they may.
I don't think it matters whether or not people mean the same thing when they refer to racism. I think arguing that the term is meaningless or too confusing to have a sensible discussion about it obfuscates the fact that racism is a legitimate concept and real world problem. So if someone tries to go in that direction I simply tell them what racism means to me and ask what it means to them.
Facts aren't racist, and even if they were, a racist position is not inherently more biased than an anti-racist position. You're not bringing up a 'bias'. You're tarring someone with a smear and therefore poisoning the well. I find it funny after more than four months you still have not managed to read a book, yet. You haven't even started reading, from what it sounds.
I dont think one is racist because he wouldnt marry a black woman. Thats ludicrous. People have a right to their own romantic preferences. I prefer blue-eyed (natural) blondes. I also like Japanese, and some Indian women. I do not find black women romantically attractive. Why should anyone date, or marry, people theyre not attracted to. Just so YOU wont consider them racist? Who are you to pass judgement on another person? Why should anyone care what you think about who they date or marry? Get a grip.
If the label fits then it isn't a smear and it isn't poisoning the well to bring up someone's ideological bias. I have 6 books that I plan to read. I bought 4 already. I will read them one by one and extrapolate arguments from them. I'm a busy man. I have become less interested in arguing with racists lately but mark my words, when I'm finished with my reading I will return. I've got other interests besides combating racism on the internet like work and hobbies one of which is Martial Arts training. In fact I just recently tried to get a fight set up with a White Supremacist who said he wanted to kill me. Check it out: Sherdog.com - I thought there were no rules I'm MysticNinjaJay on there. The original thread title was "How many Niggers have you killed?" I was working on setting up a fight but we couldn't get a deal done and the guy eventually backed down. So that is one of my internet activities that I have been focused on rather than reading books, never mind real life interests. Just to clarify I'm talking about not dating a person of another race on principle not because of aesthetic preference. If you don't find Black women to be attractive for whatever reason that doesn't make you a racist. A lot of people have preferences. Hell I don't like freckles, although if Lindsay Lohan was down (and not abusing drugs) I would fuck the hell out of her.
Some people value intelligence over sprinting given that society mocks nerds and lauds atheletes it seems the opposite is true of what you claim. Now you are making a strawman and demanding I defend what anyone says about black people. Ill defend my own assertions thanks. What you believe is no more proof than what I believe. however if you beleive that ' Blacks are stupid, lazy, violent and hypersexual because of innate biological difference which I believe is unscientific and motivated by racist ideology' then what is the cause of these behaviors given that black people score consistently worse in IQ tests (which have long been stripped of any cultural biases) and and vastly more likeley to commit crime, especially violent crime and rape than white people are.
I didn't build a strawman argument and you should know by now that I believe differences in IQ and life outcomes between races have absolutely nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with environmental differences between the groups. Environmental differences that were primarily caused by racism. The evidence for this is simply overwhelming. If you're still talking about cultural biases in the testing then you haven't done any serious research on the environmental argument. I have discussed this many times just look at this post, that post and this post. So what can you glean from those posts? What you should have learned by now is that biological explanations for racial differences in IQ like brain size and testosterone differences as well as evolutionary arguments are invalid and that when controlling for the environment the Black-White IQ gap disappears. The IQ gap has also been significantly reduced in America since the Civil Rights movement. This means that the cause of IQ disparities between racial groups is not genetic. Not even partially genetic. Even the case for no cultural biases in the testing can not be made especially for testing in Africa (Wicherts, 2010). So Blacks are not innately stupid, lazy, violent or hypersexual. The crime argument is ridiculous given that violent crime does not represent the general population and if you want to say crime is rooted in culture we can look at historical atrocities regarded as crimes against humanity to see that Whites have as a collective have been much more criminal (including for violent crimes like rape and murder) and Asians are not innocent of such crimes either. When looking at the available evidence objectively we can see that your position is based on pseudoscience which is promoted by scholars with a racist ideological agenda. These arguments are pseudoscientific to the core and based on biased scholarship. Scientific Racism isn't taken any more seriously in academia than Holocaust Denial which is also popular among White Nationalists who promote these sort of ideas because they are racists. If you honestly think that your arguments are not blatant racism then you have been duped. You simply can not address such arguments honestly without acknowledging that they are rooted in racist ideology. This is a well-documented fact. Look at the sources. Look at the funding behind the sources. Look at the argument objectively. If you can't see that the argument is racist then you don't understand racism. On a side note my opponent on Sherdog has now taken to Youtube to talk about our planned fight. This is funny stuff. [video=youtube;OEGloJmkkRg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEGloJmkkRg[/video] I hate racism so much that I would take a dangerous fight just to get personal satisfaction out of putting a White Supremacist in his place. On second thought Sab maybe you are right. We Blacks really are just a violent bunch of people. It's in our genes just like super athleticism.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that we think of you as some sort of authority, I dont believe what you beleive Just because you assert it doesnt make it true. You really are tedious. You are not an authority and I dont accept your arguments yeah yeah racist racist racist What we kbow is right now in Every western country which has a black minority black people commit crime ,indeed violent crime well above that not only of the population in general but of whiote people of the same socio economic background I dont advocate holocaust denial but academia has gone so far to the left that anyone deviating is driven out. Even a nobel prize winner who discovred the double helix was driven out because he dared challenge the left orthodoxy YOu just want to fight people.
[MENTION=61598]Sab[/MENTION] So you ignored my arguments even though they are backed by peer-reviewed sources. You are also advocating conspiracy theories about liberals taking over academia. Even if most academics are liberal so what? Does that mean that they can't present objective scholarship on this issue? Do you believe that conservatives are equally untrustworthy? As for James Watson, so what if he won a Nobel Prize for co-discovering DNA? Does that mean he is right about all matters involving genetics? What original research did he do on the subject of race and intelligence? I saw his interview with Henry Louis Gates Jr. Watson didn't have a clue what he was talking about. He made no scientific arguments he just assumed that races differed in intelligence based on reading a book about it by Richard Lynn, a biased researcher. Scholars like Lynn and Rushton are quacks seeking a genetic basis to racist stereotypes. Watson was ignorant of the scientific research on the matter and his comments were irresponsible which is why he was criticized and ostracized by the scientific community. Joseph Graves, an actual expert on evolutionary genetics who has researched the topic thoroughly, had to go on CNN to refute Watson's assumptions. If they had a debate it would be quite embarrassing for Watson. Graves did debate Rushton one of the top researchers advancing the hereditarian argument that you support and he refuted his arguments. Have you seen that debate? I uploaded it to Youtube. [video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video] Now what scientific arguments can you make against the research in this video? If you have trouble following the discussion simply read this article it contains the same arguments. If you can't provide a rebuttal or at least a counter source and extrapolate an argument from it then you simply aren't interesting in having a scientific discussion which means you don't care about the facts of the matter. PSEUDOSCIENCE displays a remarkable and characteristic indifference to fact. Writers tend simply to make up bogus “facts”— what Norman Mailer calls “factoids”— where needed, instead of going to the trouble of consulting reliable reference works, much less investigating directly. Yet these fictitious facts are often central to the pseudoscientist’s argument and conclusions! This can also be seen in the fact that pseudoscientists never revise. The first edition of any pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book may go through innumerable new printings, over decades or centuries. Even a book with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page is just reprinted as it is, over and over. Compare to college science textbooks, which usually see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts, ideas, discoveries, experiments and insights in science. - Rory Coker PhD As for my fighting exploits I don't want to fight "people" I want to fight White Supremacists.
That fact was revealed in an article by William Dickens and James Flynn. These findings are based on data gathered from tests between 1972 and 2002. 2002 was almost 15 years ago. According to Nisbett the gap has been reduced even further than that. If the Black American IQ average in 2016 is 93 then the Black-White IQ gap has been reduced by 53% (about 8 IQ points) shattering the assertion of strong hereditarians such as Rushton and Jensen that the Black-White IQ gap is 80% genetically determined. Rushton and Jensen tried to counter the evidence presented by Dickens and Flynn but they were clearly in denial. As the environment for African-Americans improves the IQ and life outcomes of African-Americans is also improving which is reflected in academic test scores and the income of African-Americans. There is simply no reason to believe that racial IQ gaps are caused by genetic differences.
Where's the correspondence between Flynn's disputed study and changes in SAT scores for the last 30 years?
Also, the WAIS-IV shows a 14.5 point gap in 2006. https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/05/21/is-the-black-white-iq-gap-shrinking/
