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

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Egalitarianjay02, Sep 29, 2018.

?

Will any proponent of Scientific Racism develop the courage to debate in an academic setting?

  1. Yes. Scientific Racism will return to the academic arena in the forseeable future.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No. Proponents of Scientific Racism are cowards who know their pseudoscience has been discredited.

    3 vote(s)
    100.0%
  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your concession is accepted and we can return to the thread topic given that it was not I who was on the receiving end of any shellacking.
     
    Egalitarianjay02 likes this.
  2. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then begin by regaling me with your alma mater's stellar reputation as an inclusive, tolerant institution, and pillar of free speech. I'll then contrast that fine institution with notable liberal institutions who immerse students in fascism.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2018
  3. Jabrosky

    Jabrosky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think the proponents of scientific racism really care about winning the hearts and minds of scholars like Graves who can actually shoot them down. They're more comfortable disseminating their bullshit to the general public who don't know any better. Unfortunately, if the sheer volume of racist trolls out there is any indication, this tactic actually seems to be successful.
     
    DarkSkies likes this.
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no obligation to tolerate prejudice, racism and bigotry anywhere in the world. Free speech does NOT cover incitement to violence against other races.

    So that means your strawman fallacy is going nowhere...as usual!

    :roflol:
     
  5. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you examine the limited subset demographic that embraces the fallacy of scientific racism it is not hard to see why it appeals to them. Less educated with subpar IQ's themselves they feel threatened by those who can equal and better them which is why they embrace anything that might bolster their own abysmally low self esteem.
     
    Egalitarianjay02 likes this.
  6. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    They would of course stand no chance of winning the heart and mind of scholars as intelligent as Joseph Graves. But to claim the scientific high ground they would need to take on the elite in the scientific community who oppose their position. I believe that deep down they know this is not feasible so they choose to spread propaganda on the internet to anyone who will listen.

    If they truly believed their position was valid and had any chance of acceptance this is the type of debate they should want.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  7. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh but there is an obligation when you seek out those opinions as the OP has. Then there's the fascist speech filter you've just concocted. Pre-screen topics to determine what or whom they might incite? MAGA hats incite unhinged liberals, and in the age of micro-aggressions it's way more about WHO says it, than WHAT is said. University courses that focus on "whiteness" and "toxic masculinity" are pervasive ans are the pinnacle of institutional bigotry, fascism and incitement. I think in this instance you DO "represent" liberal academia when you pompously portend to know what doesn't need or deserve to be heard because of liberal sensitivities and their proclivity for violence.
     
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    Asinine projection of alt right shortcomings duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.
     
  9. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    :hiding: Shellacking ...
     
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    If that is your definition of a "shellacking" then the alt right has skin so thin it might as well be transparent. At least that explains why they throw foot stomping hissyfits whenever their bigotry, prejudices and intolerance is exposed.

    :roflol:
     
  11. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Skin not thin enough to advocate fascist censorship professor. :;):
    Skin not thin enough to be bruised by your phony indictments of my character either. I'll not be so cliche as to invoke Alinsky to rebut ... it'd be needlessly redundant because your screed speaks for itself. I can't think of a single conservative leaning poster you haven't claimed isn't "alt-right", and that's not a display of bigotry and intolerance? I'm here supporting the idea that bigots as you've predetermined, should be exposed in a civil manner by means of debate. Ideologies, views, and opinions judged on merit and statistical analysis. The OP must be "alt-right" right too. :roflol:
     
  12. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Regardless of your views on liberal bias and hostility on academia the idea that Charles Murray or any other proponent of Scientific Racism can not have a debate with a scientist that opposes their position is ridiculous and an obvious excuse not to debate. Murray by his own admission was willing to debate Joseph Graves so long as the debate was set up in a way he wanted it to and didn't go through with it because the debate society wouldn't agree to his terms. Graves offered to debate him at any venue of his choosing and he declined. If you are willing to go to any University that will allow you to speak and you get a direct challenge from a top scientist who opposes your work and turn it down then you have displayed intellectual cowardice.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed in the specific case, not in the broader sense. Not hitching my wagon to either side of this "debate". #9 expesses my views succinctly.
     
  14. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I would appreciate if we stick to the topic. The topic of the thread is not liberal bias in academia. That is indirectly relevant but that's not an excuse for declining an academic debate. Murray can not say that no venue will accept him without there being a violent mob disrupting the event because many most certainly can and the parameters of the debate can be negotiated. This doesn't have to be Murray vs. Graves although I would like to see that debate. Gottfredson vs. Graves, Gottfredson vs. Turkheimer or Nisbett or anyone seen as an expert on the position for either side can and should be contacted by anyone who wants to see this type of debate happen. I have emailed so many scholars who took the time to talk to me and I haven't seen one person on this board put in the same effort. Graves has not only side he is willing to debate he has done so. There just hasn't been anyone in years willing to accept his challenge because he cleaned Rushton's clock and made him look foolish.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2018
    Derideo_Te likes this.

Share This Page