The Pseudoscience of J. Philippe Rushton

Come on now. You are ok with the government telling people who can have kids and who can't, but telling people who they have to marry is too far? I thought you were into the whole eugenics thing.

 

And believing that letting in non-white immigrants into the country is going to destroy the white race is not a slippery slope argument?

 

No I don't think so, given the scale we see. London is majority non-White and getting worse.

Mod edit,,post not poster,,flounder,,2

 

Can you name a benefit to diversity?

Is there any heterogeneous nation in the world today that you think is better off having a mix of races rather than just one of those races?

 

Apologize for what? Because I believed that you support eugenics and I asked some questions? You talk about protecting our society from bad genes. What was I supposed to think? Isn't that what eugenics is about, improving the genetic quality of a population? I may be mistaken, but I did not lie.

 

I know you are going to trot out your 'genetic diversity is bad' article. Tell you what, for every article you provide that shows that genetic diversity is bad, I'll provide 3 article that show genetic diversity is good.

Every single one of them.

 

Genetic diversity is usually bad. There are more ways to break a complex system than improve it. Small amounts of variation are good. "Diversity is always good" is incredibly naive, Mod edit,,flounder,,

 

Wrong. Genetic diversity is what protects a species from extinction. If a new disease comes along or the environment changes, it is genetic diversity that is going to protect the species. Genetic diversity is what keeps our "bad" genes from taking over and crippling us with birth defects. This is why among dogs, mutts are healthier than pure breeds and why you are not allowed to marry your sister. Yes, there are rare instances where genetic diversity can be detrimental, but these are in isolated populations that have not had outside contact for hundreds of thousands of year. So while a scientist would never say "Diversity is always good", a scientists would say "Too much diversity is preferable to not enough".

 

Ok, get back to me on your studies showing the benefits of diversity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities

Why don't you go ahead and list the benefits of Hispanic and Black diversity in the US.

Show us the welfare and crime rates of Blacks and Hispanics compared to Whites to prove diversity is beneficial.

 

No one needs to defend diversity to you. Rather than take the bait I would recommend that DarkDaimon explain to you why he believes racism is wrong. Or better yet get back to the actual subject of the thread which is Rushton's research.

 

You mean the topic from which you fled: Lieberman's incorrect claims regarding brain volume sharply contrasting Rushton's long-held claims.

 

I didn't flee I've simply reached the end of my interest in debating you having recognized the futility of debating racists on a topic where they will never concede the point. Lieberman refuted Rushton. There's plenty of support for his position in that article and elsewhere. But you're never going to admit that I'm right and you're wrong so there's no point in arguing about it.

 

I was talking genetic diversity. If you want to argue cultural diversity, I'm going to have to decline as I am not very up to date on the social sciences.

 

I'm personally indifferent to diversity. I don't care how ethnically diverse or homogenous a country is. I don't see it as a benefit nor a detriment to society.

 

You think Switzerland has a similar quality of life to Brazil?

Although I agree that diversity can be good, if you compare South Africa or Brazil to Liberia or Haiti.

 

I don't believe the quality of life of those countries has anything to do with their diversity or lack thereof.

How about comparing Amsterdam, Netherlands to Moscow, Russia?

Amsterdam is very Multicultural and Multiracial. Moscow is almost completely White.

Amsterdam is a much safer place to live. If your racial theories are correct how do you explain this?

 

When we see similar patterns based on diversity no-one cares what you "believe" (lies you make up) because the data speaks for itself.

Amsterdam is not "very Multicultural and Multiracial" at all and Moscow has a pretty high quality of life.

 

You can't prove that diversity itself is the cause of any of the problems you point to.

Amsterdam has a 50% foreign population including a lot of Muslims and Africans. Moscow has a very high crime rate.

 

As Popper showed you can't prove anything in science. You can strongly infer things though. The consistent pattern strongly infers race related social outcomes.

Where are your race based crime statistics for Moscow and Amsterdam?

 

You can certainly prove things in science.

There's no empirical proof that diversity is the cause of any social problems. Only crackpot theories like Rushton's pseudoscientific, racist garbage.

I don't have race-based statistics on either of those countries but it is well-known that Amsterdam is one of the safest cities in the world and Moscow is one of the most dangerous yet Amsterdam is far more ethnically diverse than Moscow and I mean by extreme margins.


http://goamsterdam.about.com/od/planatrip/f/safetyquestion.htm

Question: How Safe Is Amsterdam?

A reader wanted to know:

How safe is Amsterdam? What are the areas of Amsterdam people should avoid?

Answer:

It might surprise visitors to know that Amsterdam is actually one of the safest cities in the world. International consultancy Mercer ranked Amsterdam 22 out of 215 world cities for personal safety in its 2008 Quality of Life Survey. Fellow European capitals Paris and London didn't even make the top 50.

 

Nuh huh

 

If you have race-based statistics on The Netherlands or Russia let me know. I don't know of any for either those countries or their cities.

But my point stands. Amsterdam is one of the safest cities in the world and culturally diverse. Moscow is comparatively much more dangerous yet very ethnically homogenous.

How do you explain this?

 

Your point doesn't stand at all because you have no data to support it.

 

I cited a source for Amsterdam being one of the safest cities in the world. There is data supporting that fact.

 

I don't know where you got "Maximum genetic diversity is good", no one on this thread has said that, that I know of. Many have pointed out the genetic diversity is desirable however. Ask banana farmers who have lost entire crops to Fusarium Wilt a disease that is devastating the Cavendish variety of bananas (the most common banana bought in stores), but effects other varieties such as “GCTCV 219”, less. If their crops were more genetically diverse, they would have lost less of their crops. This is a common theme among farmers and ranchers.

And you think more restricted levels of diversity are good in nature? Prove it. Like I said to Rayznak, for every article you find showing that genetic diversity is bad, I'll show three articles proving it is good. I'll even give you one for free: The Importance of Genetic Diversity in Livestock Populations of the Future