Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

Screaming they're facts doesn't establish them as facts, nor does trying to tar people who disagree with you as Hitler-lovers. This is basic adult-level logic. Why am I having to explain this?

You claim they were gassed, you're making the affirmative assertion. Therefore, all burden of proof is on you.

Not accurate as your entire "criteria" for establishing "Jew haters, Nazi lovers, white supremacists" is SOLELY on their disagreeing with WWII historical claims.

What is a "religious fanatic"? I assume you mean a Christian as I've never seen people who express your type of vitriol go after Jews or Muslims.

Trying to shout people down isn't "confronting," it's having a loud fit like a 2 year old accustomed to having a tit shoved into his face when he screams long enough.

Yes, you're a bigot, so why rail against bigots?

Yes, your intent has indeed been to impress me. That's what all this screaming was intended to accomplish. But since you lack the intellectual ability to discuss things rationally, you scream and curse and call names and attempt to intimidate, as if someone could be intimidated through a laptop monitor.

 

You've done it to me on this thread, so why pull this on him?

 

You've obviously never studied psychology beyond the I-read-internet-activist-articles level.

If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to be silent, rather than trying to conflate your social philosophy with science by making scientifically fallacious remarks.

 

Hijacking what I said about you and your belief in gassings to bash someone. Cute.

I had no opinion on the IQ issue until I began taking college psych classes.

How about you?

Where did YOUR opinion come from? Clearly you have not taken 5 minutes of classroom psychology.

 

He insulted black folks by comparing them to lab rats. That's how desperate he is to blame white people.

 

If that were the case, you could defend them when asked and not stall for 3+ years.

 

The correlation is to claim that low average IQs are tied to "discrimination and poverty" because the two exist at the same time, but he hasn't offered anything to connect them.

He talks extensively about alleged environmental effects on IQ but has nothing to say about IQ effects on environment.

Just because slavery/Jim Crow existed doesn't mean black average IQ would be high outside of that environment.

 

I most definitely agree that volume has nothing to do with facts.
OTOH, I do not tar people who disagree with me as "hitler lovers".

I tar people who deny the holocaust as jew haters and/or nazi apologists. This should be evident to you as it clearly falls into the category of basic primary school grammar and reading comprehension.

Oh no, you are the one that claimed you had assessed the evidence and after careful research you have arrived at the conclusions that there was no gassing.

given that you reject the basic historical narrative seems to me its up to you to fork over the goods.

Lets see the mountain of evidence you used to arrive at your conclusion.

Lets see what Butz, Faurisson, Mottognolo, Barnes, Leuchter, Krege, Ball, Rudolph, Irving, and the rest of the clownshow that the jew haters and nazi apologists call "respected researchers".

I see you have made yet another incorrect assumption. My criteria for identifying jew haters, nazi lovers, white supremacists et. al. INCLUDES their holocaust denialism, but it certainly isn't the sole criterion.

ALL RELIGIOUS FANATICS.

A teaching moment: Just because you haven't seen my posts regarding jewish fanatics and Islamists and buddahist fanatics AND christian fantics, doesn't mean those posts do not exist.

Superificial assumptions are necessary "intellectual" tools for your run of the mill racist, jew hater, holocaust denier.

OOOOOH, shouting. Make the bad man be quiet mommy.

Because with the exception of pedophiles, every other subject of my bigotry are BIGOTS themselves. Might be a tad too nuanced for you to comprehend the implications of my bigotries, but as a bigot I don't give a fecal deposit.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

oh you are so pathetically transparent. Anytime you want to actually present evidence to back up your ludicrous claims of no gassings happened, I will be DELIGHTED (truly) to clearly, rationally, and decisively demonstrate that your "evidence" is for the most part made up nonsense and where accurate is hardly material. Shall we start with LEUCHTER?

 

So why don't you take your own advice?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/self-reg/201704/reframing-iq

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx

 

well then, that settles it.

 

Cognitive tests which measure mental ability are available. You can be illiterate and still take them.

Your claims have been addressed, countered or debunked countless times. Northeast Asians have larger brain volume thwn whites than blacks. Brain volume correlates with IQ. Your comment on Einstein is your poor attempt at logical reasoning and is akin to rejecting bicep circumference as a measurement of strength because the correlation may be low and you can find counter examples of people with really high fast twitch muscle fiber loading with low bicep circumference; it still doesn't refute the generality of the correlation. You simply demonstrate your inability to grasp basic arguments and prime yourself on talking points and copypasties that are always tangential to the points being made. This is an endless loop, qnd you always manage to retail discredited or cherrypicked claims. I can't count the number of times you claimed no intrafamilial head size correlation based on one study when four other larger studies were presented to you.

You ignore the study consensus of larger ne asian, white and black brain volume with misleading and dubious claims of no racial hierarchy in brain volume. The beals study actually did find correlation, but you don't understand the difference between low and no correlation.

Adding to that, you don't understand statistics, and demonstrate gross misunderstanding and are unable articulate your beliefs or respond to specific technical questions. It is curious why someone spending his time soliciting academics for responses you want has never posted on one of the subforums regarding your misunderstanding on correlation coefficients.

 

Right, as opposed to engage them in why they should share your view, you attack them and obsessively spam them much like you are here. I don't care how angry you are. Outrage isn't an argument.

Right, and there's no such thing as proving the negative in logic, so since you are making the positive assertion, the sole burden of proof is on you.

You're right, I reject narratives of all kinds, especially ones that lack substantiation and float by people engaged in outraged bullying campaigns.

I think you meant Mattogno there, and you've yet to state proof why they're "Jew haters" let alone lying. As I said, there is bad scholarship among especially some of them, but that doesn't validate the mass gassing narrative.

No, it was based off your attacks of me. I disagreed with mass gassings and you blew your emotive cork, labeling me all of those above slurs.

Clearly you have not an argument that goes beyond tarring people you disagree with.

Uh huh.

Cool, and you haven't seen me support Hitler and hate Jews yet you claim I do.

See?

Only one shouting is you. Do you have an argument for why the gassings happened at Auschwitz-Birkenau? Appeals to outrage and Nazi-labeling aren't it.

Again, show me in the dictionary where disagreeing with a historical narrative fits the definition of bigotry. Do you read much, sir?

I don't have to present evidence. I'm not the one making the affirmative statement. I am the one the disbelieves it.

I agree, a lot of the so-called evidence for mass gassings is bullshit which is why I stopped believing.

You are still unable to put away your effeminate emotive hystserics.

 

I am a science undergraduate student.

If the statistics show it to be common for members of a race to have lower than normal IQs, do we devalue that race? If so, then do we devalue the individuals of another race who also have a lower than normal IQ?

Alternately, if one race commonly has individuals with above average athleticism, do we devalue the race where above average athleticism is less common?

Racism debunked.

 

They never do which I have pointed out in the past.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-civil-conversation-with-most-racists.447330/

But I am will at the very least give them a chance and point out why they aren't able to.

I have provided tons and tons of sources supporting my argument which you, Rayznack and others have ignored. So we're not going to play this game. If you want a response to your questions you are going to have to answer mine that are directly relevant to my argument in this thread. You haven't done it. I even addressed your arguments recently in posts #132 and #138.

If you're not going to debate fairly you're not going get answers to your questions when you ask for them. Rayznack will get an answer to his questions after he provides sources defending his argument.

Where is the evidence that you have? You claimed an argument from quantitative genetics that is taught in differential psychology came from one scholar when it is taught in the very textbook you claimed you read. You haven't addressed the argument even though it has been pointed out to you over and over but you want to claim superior knowledge from psych classes?

This is not true and simply shows your ignorance of how laboratory experiments on model organisms like rats help us learn more about aspects of human biology including intelligence which is under the influence of the same mechanisms as theirs. This was pointed out to you in post #132.

I have defended my sources throughout this thread and explained their relevance to my argument which you have not addressed. You aren't able to keep up with this debate without trolling.

This again shows your ignorance of the argument I have presented and of gene x environment interactions. You can't speculate on the genetic potential of a population for a phenotypic trait like intelligence without showing that the environment between groups being compared are equal. At no point in American history have Blacks lived in an equal environment to Whites. The only way to show experimentally that Whites have greater genetic potential for intelligence would be to reverse the roles. Have White people endure slavery, segregation and Jim Crow for the same length of time with the same level of discrimination and the environmental inequality that results from it and then show that their IQ is still normal and then you will have proven that Whites are innately superior in intelligence to Blacks.

I have provided plenty of scientific evidence showing that there is no scientific basis for claiming a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and you have failed to respond to any of it. You won't because you can't.

You're dodging the question and going on an emotional rant devoid of facts or sources to support your argument. Just answer the question and provide sources.

Question: What sources have you provided to support the position that human evolution has resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that cause differences in intelligence?

If you're not going to answer my question and defend your argument with sources I'm not going to answer yours. This is the reason why you were banned on Sciforum.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-and-iq-differences.156169/page-3#post-3377197

Anyone can review my post history in this thread and see that your comments on brain size and intelligence are simply incorrect (ex. post #53). There is no point in me repeating myself when you blatantly misinterpret, distort and ignore sources. So just provide sources supporting your argument.

I agree with your line of reasoning and you can see that I made similar arguments in a recent post on Sciforum.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-is-real.159634/page-10#post-3480810

Science does not justify racism. Moreover posters defending this type of research are doing so to justify their ideology and not because of a genuine interest in science. Science is only being misused by them as a tool.

PSEUDOSCIENCE begins with a hypothesis— usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible— and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Notice how often, when you are asked by a friend about what should be a question of fact if the topic were not pseudoscience, the opening phrase is, “Do you believe in ESP?” (or flying saucers, or prophecy, or Bigfoot)... not, is the evidence good, but rather, do you believe, without raising dull questions of evidence. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate and find out what’s actually going on, or to test various possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to “congenial conclusions,” grinding ideological axes, appealing to pre-conceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. Not just Creationists, but 20th Century pseudoscientists of all flavors, from J. B. Rhine and Immanuel Velikovsky to Rupert Sheldrake, have underlying their claims and assertions an anachronistic world-view that essentially rejects all or most of the tested, reliable findings of science as “unacceptably materialistic!” The general public tends to view pseudoscientists as “mavericks” who are working slightly beyond the “accepted” boundaries of science. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Pseudoscientists invariably represent a world-view which is not simply unscientific or pre-scientific, but rather militantly antiscientific. - Rory Coker Phd

 

I agree outrage isn't an argument. It is a statement. In this case of my utter contempt for your stated position.

No doubt from ignorance you have just You have just expressed psuedologic.

Proving a negative is most definitely a "thing" . Here' a quick primer on burden of proof:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative

Yes especially those that lack substantiation.

Naturally Eichmann in his own words was under extreme duress so his testimony is worthless. Yuk Yuk.

http://remember.org/eichmann/ownwords

Yeah sorry, I keep making that mistake with the idiot's name.

Oh the proof is in their writings and videos. It is in their associations and meetings and seminars.

And I totally agree with you that the holocaust deniers universal bad scholarship does not validate the mass gassing narrative. OTOH, you seem to be totally ignoring the veritable mountain chain of empirical evidence that does validate the narrative.

Sorry, I just don't buy the innocent academic denialist act followed up with the outraged "you called me out" crap. You are about the 500th denier I have engaged with directly over the years. (I've been at this since 1984 - "did six million really die"- Samizdat)

You deny that a systematic industrialized murder campaign utilizing gas was carried out by the SS?

If so then I claim that you are at a minimum a jew hater. Your position is not an academic one it is a bigoted one.

Why they happened? They happened because it was the most efficient method of killing large amounts of people and the germans have always been a efficient people.

I see you have trouble with the following:

Anyone who when examining the historical record comes to the conclusion that the Nazis did not gas hundreds of thousands of people (mostly jews), has to have arrived at that conclusion by diving into the depths of the denialist cesspool. they would have to get their "knowledge" from such bastions of academic dishonesty as CODOH, IHR, STORMFRONT and the like.

Disagreeing with a particular narrative is not in and of itself bigoty. I already told you I didn't say your bigotry was due to your questioning, I said your bigotry was on display for the CONCLUSION you arrived at and exactly who and where you got your "evidence" for such.

It's not that you don't have to present evidence to prove your case, its that you can't produce any evidence that proves your case.

In support of my contention of your bullshit I submit some light reading for you edification - The rise and fall of the third reich.

And no I won't put away my bigotry, my contempt, my derision, my disgust for the subjects of those bigotries. And guess what - you be one babe.

 

I literally said every primary study on brain volume show black and white differences.

I don't need need to provide any evidence of an evolutionary mechanism to prove brain volumes differ.

This is more of your dishonest debate tactics.

Would i need to do the same for fast twitch muscle fiber differences between West African blacks and whites?

If not, why would you suddenly require this for brain volume differences?

That's right, because it doesn't fit your narrative and you want to excuse yourself from addressing factual consensus.

Again, what studies show blacks hsving equal brain volume with whites? Why have you ignored studies you've been presented showing the opposite?

Why don't you try and support your claim that low correlation means increasimg the independent variable wouldn't increase the dependent variable?

 

Yes they are available. If not in wides spread use.

However, the correlation between poverty and intelligence (IQ testing) has been clearly identified and in part substantiates the legitimate criticism that standardized IQ test REQUIRE a certain education/literacy level .

 

I just addressed the problems with your argument in another thread. Yes, actually you do need to provide evidence that there is a genetic cause to any measured difference in a phenotypic trait and that includes the claim that Blacks can run faster because of having more fast twitch muscles. There is no scientific consensus supporting your argument. The scientific community has rejected your racial theories with decades of research.

You accuse me of dishonest debate tactics yet you are the one ignoring arguments, refusing to provide sources supporting your argument and asking leading questions to demand evidence from others. The same criticisms of your debate strategy here are why you got banned on a science message board. I have stated this entire time that there is no scientific basis to the claim that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and what evidence have you presented to the contrary? None. Even if there was a scientific study on a representative number of populations that show objectively that brain volume differs between racial groups you need to show that genetic differences cause the physical difference.

These two email conversations with scholars outline the problem with your argument:

You can replace gestation with brain volume in Graves' email and the argument would be the same. MacEachern further outlines the problem with assuming an evolutionary genetic cause to supposed differences in brain size. Also while its been a few years since I read the book Graves also talks about the fallacy of assuming that Blacks are superior athletes in the book The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America. He devotes a whole chapter to discussing African-American over-representation in the NBA and the belief that Blacks can run faster due to genetic differences between races (providing a direct rebuttal to Jon Entine's book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're Afraid To Talk About It). Some of the sources I have cited refuting racial hierarchies in brain size are also mentioned in Chris Stringer's books on human evolution, African Exodus and Lone Survivors. So you are sorely outmatched when it comes to credible sources that support one's argument.

 

Its called projection. The last bastion of the intransigent bigot. In the end it is a go-to dismissal tactic by racists when they cannot adequately defend their pseudoscientific nonsense.

You sir are entirely too accomodating to the intellectually bankrupt.

 

You are correct that Rayznack is employing psychological projection. However I have been asked by a moderator not to personally attack my opponents by calling them liars, trolls or even racists. So while it may appear that I am being accommodating I am simply trying to comply with the rules of this message board. Believe me, unrestricted I would be a lot harsher towards them when it comes to pointing out their intellectual dishonesty, moral bankruptcy and blatant racism. But if I just denounced them as evil racist demons and pathological liars I might run the risk of having more of my posts deleted or the thread closed entirely.

So in the interest of keeping the thread alive to expose Scientific Racism I will simply give Rayznack, Empress, Taxonomy26 and the other "debate opponents" the opportunity to challenge my views and when they fail that will speak for itself.

 

You have no credentials to make such an assessment, especially since I've off and on spent 3 years correcting fallacious comments you've made about the field of psychology.

 

Dickens and Flynn's work, which you heavily rely on to "prove" IQ gaps are closing and are "caused" by evil white people, makes a false reliance on stable environmental input on IQ and does not address the increase in heritability and lessening influence of environment on IQ as the person ages, thus my comments are wholly relevant.

People are not under the "constant genetic effects" that Dickens & Flynn's calculations are based on, thus their argument - and your use of it - is pure garbage. Genetic effects markedly increase as a child ages into adulthood.

You cannot claim a massive impact of environment on the black/white IQ gap when environment is increasingly irrelevant as a person ages and their IQs reflect those of their biological parents.

"Can be interpreted"? Where is your source material for this, or did you whip that up out of thin air? What legitimate, valid scientific source do you posit for this?

I'm also wondering why you're saying there are legitimate problems with the definition of intelligence, but NOT the legitimate definition of discrimination and poverty. If my pointing this out for the definitions of discrimination and poverty are "trolling," then quite certainly is your argument for the definition of intelligence.

 

I defer to your greater sense of decorum.

 

and which doctorate qualifies you to make that assessment?

 

I wasn't speaking to you and if you care to research old threads on this forum between Jay and I going back to 2014, you knock yourself out.

And since you already know that Jay lacks a doctorate in anything, you may want to try invoking another gambit that doesn't completely deligitimize your prized ally in hate.