Selective Outrage when It Comes to Racism

rubbish it is quite clear that black people in the USA are vastly more violent than white people.

 

Hard to change history to his-story, isn't it?

 

whatever that means

Black people are clearly more violent. Just because white people are technically more superior and were able to subjugate black people has no bearing whatsoever on whether black people's high testosterone makes them more prone to violent outburst.

 

And, I was correct. He came and tried to justify it. Awesome.

 

It is not racist to point out facts. It is racist to encourage discrimination and foster race hatred.

The left are racist. they want dsicrimnatory laws and they encourage racial hatred.

I think we have to acknowledge that different racial groups have different abilities and target resources into alleviating those difficulties instead of lying as the left do. If Black boys have higher testosterone levels than the average then this needs to be taken into account in our education and social care strategies not lying ad pretending that they aren;t there.

 

Amazing how that works, no?

 

Glock can't answer that the facts speak for themselves.

 

More White Supremacist garbage. Blacks are overrepresented in violent crime because they are disproportionately poor (a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and Segregation) not because of high testosterone. And Whites had superior technology to subjugate and oppress Black people not because they are a superior specimen. That's propaganda that White Supremacists have been preaching for years. White Supremacists are some of the most violent people to ever walk the face of the Earth.

Stop looking to science to justify your prejudice beliefs.

 

I look to science because that is where the TRUTH lies not blinered ideology

It is a FACT that black men have highere testosterone than white men and it is a FACT that high levels of Testosterone are a causitive factor in violent crime.

Are you claiming that White civilisation was NOT more technologically advanced than African ones in the 16th-19th centuries?

 

If you want to talk science then look at the quote I provided from an evolutionary biologist debunking the claim of racial differences in testosterone level as well as testosterone being a causative factor in violent crime. Neither of those claims its true. It's racist pseudoscience.

African civilization predated European civilization by several hundred years. So no you can't point to cultural achievement to say that Whites are superior to Blacks either. We differ in a few physical traits as a product of adaptation to different environments which have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or behavior.

 

You can only mention that if your name is Farrakhan.

Who do you think you are?

- - - Updated - - -

First time I heard that claim was Louis Farrakhan.

He must be a white racist.

 

Do you trust Louis Farrakhan's word over that of an evolutionary biologist like Joseph Graves? That would be rich. I've never heard Farrakhan make the claim that high Black violent crime rate is due to higher testosterone levels. I did hear him say on BET that we need to have young boys play sports and get in to more positive activities where they can release their aggression rather than running the street getting in to trouble which is obviously not the same thing. Even if what you say is correct (I wouldn't be surprised if some other Black people believe this) Farrakhan is not a scientist and probably doesn't base his opinion on scientific research. You've seen the rebuttal to this claim from an actual scientist so if you're challenging Graves' statement address my source.

 

So yet again you deflect, calling whites who make the statement racist but not blacks who do.

Enough said.

 

I'm not deflecting from anything. I'm asking you to address the source. Obviously Sab is making the statement for racist reasons and anyone who does is making a racist argument. That's besides the point. The statement isn't true. That's the point I am making.

 

You have a tendency to switch topics when confronted with something uncomfortable. I wouldn't know about the issue of testosterone; I haven't cared enough to look. Suffice it to say, I know enough about Graves to not take him on face value. Activist scholars are questionable by default, not counting his commenting outside his expertise.

 

I'm on topic. You're the one who tried talking about Farrakhan and alleged double standards regarding the subject when the real topic was whether or not the statement itself was truthful. So you admit you really don't know anything about the subject. Enough said.

As for Graves being an activist scholar that's just a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack. As a biologist he's qualified to speak on this subject unlike Rushton who was a Psychologist. Graves statement is correct and Sab seems to have nothing to say about it, neither do you.

 

I don't care and I was making a point about your calling someone "a racist" when they said the same basic thing Farrakhan has said, and Farrakhan isn't being called a racist for it, which isn't surprising to me.

Graves IS an activist scholar. He openly states that his belief in discounting the existence of race is key in promoting equality, which would explain why nearly all of his publications are on the topic of race. Both of his books and most of his scholarly papers have been on the topic of race and teaching about the topic of race. He seems to scarcely lift a finger writing about topics outside of race. He's going out of his way to fixate on that topic. The dude is a 100% racial activist. That is not a "circumstantial ad hominem" because I pointed out that he is an activist by his behavior. You don't seem to know what that ad hominem means.

You didn't discount Graves for going outside of his expertise and writing about IQ in his book Emperor's Clothes, so why selectively slam Rushton for it?

Just sayin'.

As much of a guy as Graves is that doesn't believe in race, he doesn't shy away from publishing copiously in black scholarly publications. That doesn't surprise me.

 

First of all you haven't even confirmed that Farrakhan said this. Your statement is hearsay. I told you that even if it were true Farrakhan is not a scientist so his opinion isn't back up by evidence. We really can't judge Farrakhan as a racist based on an alleged statement. If he meant it in a racist context, like Sab did, then he was being racist. But I'd like to verify that he even said this before jumping to conclusions.

Actually a lot of his research focuses on the genetics of aging. Talking about race is secondary. If his fixation on the topic is extreme enough to be called an activist then so is a racialist like Rushton.

You're claiming that Graves arguments are suspect because he is an activist scholar. That is a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack because it suggests a biased agenda just because of someone's background. It's an attack on their person rather than their argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.
Examples of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

"She asserts that we need more military spending, but that is false, since she is only saying it because she is a Republican."

"I think that we should reject what Father Jones has to say about the ethical issues of abortion because he is a Catholic priest. After all, Father Jones is required to hold such views."

"Of course the Senator from Maine opposes a reduction in naval spending. After all, Bath Ironworks, which produces warships, is in Maine."

"Bill claims that tax breaks for corporations increases development. Of course, Bill is the CEO of a corporation."

I'm not slamming Rushton for it just pointing out that the topic is a biological topic and Graves is a biologist. You are the one who slams Graves for speaking about IQ in his book and elsewhere even though he's only talking about an aspect of psychological research which is their heritability and genetic arguments which he is qualified to speak on (read: The Race and IQ Fallacy in The Emperor's New Clothes) as an expert on evolutionary genetics.

What is the relevance of this comment? Surely it should come as no surprise that an African-American scholar who talks about the subject of race would publish work about race in African-American scholarly publications. Race is a social and politically reality but not a biological reality. That is the point Graves is trying to get across. Stating that there are no biological races isn't going to stop him from identifying as Black for social and political purposes. It isn't his fault we live in a racially concious society.

 

Oh good Lord, a long-winded explosion. I heard him say it online in one of his speeches some years ago. So now you're moving the bars to say the statement itself isn't racist but now it's the context? Nuh huh.

His list of writings on his Wikipedia autobiography are mostly on the subject of race. That is why I call him fixated, much like yourself.

I'm saying he's an activist scholar which you denied. Clearly his body of published papers shows he is. No, I do not take very seriously people who mix their academic training with activism. For one, he maintains that race doesn't exist; that's not a resolved issue, it's up to debate. It's basically his opinion.

The debate rages: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

Cute you tried to use one of my links in a previous thread against me when you were committing that fallacy. I'm not asserting he's doing it out of self-interest; he admitted he did. He said that debunking the idea of race was in his mind necessary for equality.

Graves has stated - and you have pasted him stating - false comments about even basic psychology which even a freshman in psych could sniff out in 5 minutes, and I've proven this on the locked thread. He oversteps his boundaries quite often and continues to do so, which is also indicative of his activism getting in the way of his scholarship.

You clammed Rushton for speaking on topics of biology in his book, saying he was overstepping his expertise. You didn't have the same condemnation for Graves or Suzuki, and the reason why is obvious.

Standards are for everybody. Always.

Graves is a racial activist for his own people while denying that race exists so that other people can't use it as a weapon.

If he doesn't want people to believe in the idea of race, he can drop the black-only publications and put his money where his mouth is.

 

I would like to see a source to see the context. I'm not convinced he even said this as it's a blatantly racist idea typically against Blacks.

Graves and I are Egalitarians combating racism. The ones fixated on race are people like you who have a racist agenda. There's a clear difference between combating an ideology and being obsessed with it. You're the racial activist not us.

You should check out this page for a more balanced list of his publications:

http://jsnn.ncat.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gravesCV.pdf

Like C Loring Brace on that page Graves holds the position that race doesn't exist. It's a debated topic in science, yes, and Graves has a position. You really don't have a basis though for questioning Graves' objectivity other than to say that he's passionate about his work which you call activism.

You don't own links to Nizkor, Empress. I use them too. Graves is of the position that we can combat racism by debunking the myth of race. I see no problem with that. As long as he's being objective in his work there's nothing wrong with being an activist.

He didn't make false statements.

I just pointed out that Rushton spoke outside his area of expertise (Graves and Suzuki did not) which you have not condemned him for the way you did Graves and Suzuki so it is in fact you who are propagating double standards.

He's an Egalitarian scientist combating racism for the sake of ALL people.

Whatever that means. I recommend people simply read Graves work themselves and draw their own conclusions rather than believe silly comments like Graves actually believes in race because he publishes on journals concerned with Black interests. This is fallacious reasoning of racists. They act as if holding the no biological races position means you should be wholly colorblind. Graves is not delving in hypocrisy as you are implying. An ethnic group defined as a race can have self-interests even if race isn't a biological construct. Pointing this out is a scientific argument. The two facts really have nothing to do with each other.

 

I tried to find it but don't remember. You're invoking "must see context" only in reference to a black person making the statement, as opposed to your slamming a white person for saying it at all.

You also became angry toward me for saying that I knew more about certain topics of black history than you, as if it's "racist" by default for a white person to be able to have such knowledge. Oddly, you don't view it racist that Graves acts like he knows reams about white history.

You deny he's an activist and consider it a "circumstantial ad hominem attack" and now you admit he is one. Gotcha.

And you aren't combating racism; you're engaging in it.

Exactly! He "has a position" as opposed to your endlessly citing him as "fact" as if it's accepted factual consensus that everyone has an agreement on. Thus, thank you for admitting you are exaggerating the worth and weight of his statements. They're indeed his "position," and nothing more.

His personal opinion.

Then why have neither one of you defended them? You bailed from the other thread and abruptly changed the subject once I pointed out what both he and you were doing with his worthless statements on topics not of his training and then tried to steer me back to the new topic of your choice to get me to stop talking about your dropping the embarrassing subject, which included but was not limited to, his making statements outside of his training of which you were trying to use in an argument outside of his training, namely psychology, heritability, and IQ.

Ad hominem tu quoque. Yet again you are falsely accusing me of being a Rushton disciple when I specifically said I hardly read his work. To defend your endless attacks against Rushton for doing that which your favorite activist-scholars also do, you invoke ad hominem tu quoque as a defense for yourself.

Busted.

I'm starting to lose track of how many times you try to invoke Rushton when you're unable to respond to me and become angry.

No, it's about blacks. That's why his works on the topic are always along the black/white paradigm.

And the reason black activists embrace the environment-only caused theory of IQ differences is obvious. The black political activist viewpoint is that whites are the cause of all ills in the black community, much the way Hitler scapegoated the Jews.

"The Jews are our misfortune!" Just replace the word Jew with white.

It's not fallacious to expect someone that is against the idea of racial groupings to racially group himself in exclusively black publications. That makes Graves a raging hypocrite.

If I published in white-only magazines would you call me racist? I know - you aren't going to answer that.

Egalitarian whites publish in white-only magazines....

 

If you can't find it then I recommend that we don't waste any more time on it. It's hearsay at best.

I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I become "angry" at you saying you knew more about Black history than me? It didn't happen.

I didn't deny he was an activist I simply challenged the logic of you questioning his motives because he might be an activist. His activity of using science to combat racism is not cause for questioning his objectivity. You are engaging in a Circumstantial Ad Hominem when you attack someone's background rather than their argument.

Nonsense. I'm not the racist you are and it's a sickening perversion when racists accuse their opponents of being racists but it is a typical strategy.

Whether or not his position is opinion or fact is a matter that can be resolved by analyzing the content of his argument. I accept his statements on race as fact because he has provided empirical evidence backing them up.

I didn't bail on anything. You nitpicked at Graves assertions on the heritability of intelligence but you didn't show that he was incorrect.

No, it's not. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.

You have defended Rushton in the past and you are simply being a hypocrite when it comes to him and his work.

No, it's not. You don't even know the man's work. Have you read either of his books? He has addressed the topic of race in its totality not just concerning Blacks and Whites. It's White Supremacists who discuss the topic along a Black/White paradigm because they have an anti-Black agenda.

That is a disgusting distortion of what is going on here. Black Americans were actually oppressed by White Americans. Hitler's condemnation of Jews was based on a fantasy of their actual political influence. The two situations are not comparable. It is a ridiculously false assertion for you to say that Black political activists blame White people and only White people for problems in the Black community just because they do no accept the blatantly racist notion that genetic differences between races are a partial cause of such problems.

No, it doesn't. You don't know what you are talking about.

That would depend on the content of these White Magazines. If their theme was to promote racist propaganda then yes I would consider you to be a racist. Have you ever read Jet Magazine or Ebony Magazine? They are cater to an audience that is an ethnic minority in America and have absolutely nothing to do with racism. Whites as the majority don't need a magazine to cater to them as practically all entertainment and news outlets appeal to White interests. The magazines and publications that do target White people do so specifically to advance a racist agenda because they're not about appealing to the unique qualities of an ethnic group they are preaching a racist ideology in favor of that ethnic group.

The two are not comparable.

If Graves posted in a Black Supremacist publication I would not cite him as a source. He does not do that. He is not a racial activist he is an Egalitarian scientist.

 

Superbadbrother, given that you condone racism, I have no doubt if you were a white man you would be a member of the KKK.

 

Please show one quote of mine that proves I condone racism. I doubt it, because I think if you have to get 5 of your buddies and put a sheet over your head to confront one man you are a coward.