Ophiolite

You are entitled to your opinion but why waste time reading bollocks? Why is it more productive... they just get their arse kicked and learn nothing. It's not cute speaking your mind when it hurts people and the ulterior motive is just that.

I've addressed these very points in another thread. I have no idea which one.

1. You don't know it is bollocks until you have read it.

2. It is important to know what "the other side" is thinking.

3. Their interpretations may be faulty, but their facts may be right.

4. "When they came for me there was no one left to protest."

5. Who was hurt by an attack on Obama's legacy? If the attack was faulty there is no reason to be hurt. If the attack was well founded they better grow up and face reality.

6. It was not demonstrated that the ulterior motive was to cause hurt.

7. Do you think I should avoid, on Christian Forums, arguing for evolution and against a 6,000 year old Earth? I am pretty sure my arguments hurt some people there.

Nazi-ism is a much more narrowly defined ideology.

After much reflection I cannot find this to be true. The elements of Nazi philosophy and political thinking that we recall, the ones that are rightly condemned, are arguably narrow. However, their thinking on economic and social matters was much broader than that.

If the mods deem to allow it. It is not a democracy. Sometimes dictatorships are good when run by the right people. Benevolent dictatorships are the way to go on a forum.

I was once a mod on this forum, but became inactive. I am currently an active mod on one other forum and an inactive mod on two others. I was admin on a further forum in the past, though I see it has gone dark recently.

The problem I have with your noble suggestion (no sarcasm intended) is that benevolence is difficult to find and even more difficult to maintain. One cause of the problem in the US at present is that neither side takes sufficient time to lack past the surface rhetoric of the other. It is all to easy to fall into a reaction, rather than a well considered dialogue.I believe we benefit from hearing and facing unpopular views, for those same views are popular in some quarters.

I just don't anticipate being in a laughing mood for a very long time.

I was wrong about Trump being nominated as the Republican candidate and I was wrong about him being elected President. They say things happen in threes. I hope I am wrong about him being a disaster for the US and for the world.

(The thing that really sticks in my throat is that genetically I am as Scottish as he is. Believe that has caused a lot of introspection. Fortunately my father wasn't a multimillionaire.)

Only if people listen, otherwise you would be pissing into the wind.

If you have to piss, you have to piss. It's up to others whether they take it or not.

I've always thought it more productive to allow, in String Junky's words, knobs to strut their stuff, rather than shut them down. I understand the arguments against this. I just don't agree with them.

Since I don't trust myself not to close some one down simply because they disagree with me rather than because they are genuinely wrong, why would I trust someone else to do this with full objectivity.

For someone to be anti-"political correctness" usually says a lot more about the type of person they are, than it does about the shortcomings of "political correctness" itself.

In my case I guess it says:

• I agree with Voltaire who said (in translation), I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.
• I abhor the expectation that I must acknowledge and respect your culture and outlook, but you need not not do the same for mine.
• I object to the rule of the masses. (Never confuse that with democracy.)
• I genuinely resent being lambasted as a sexist when I hold the door open for a militant feminist, not because she is a militant feminist, but because she is someone who would benefit from having a door held open for her.
• Etc.

Over 9000 is probably an asshole. That does not mean some of his data and some of his points are incorrect.

 

If they cannot explain their accusations then they are slander and must be redacted. They can show one place where I got something wrong in genetics or statistics. What hypocrisy! I've been contradicting your so-called experts all over the place, as detailed in the OP. If they can explain them I will redact my charges of slander.

You seem to be missing the point that, regardless of the accuracy of your scientific points, or the excellence of your scientific education in relevant subjects, if you behave like an arrogant, self satisfied asshole, then your posts will be unwelcome.

Some of your points may actually be sound. The manner in which you are going about embedding them in vitriolic posts is seriously counter productive. Three possibilities come to the top of the list as to why you are doing this:

1. You are an aggressive fool, looking for an argument.

2. You are a troll, looking for an argument.

3. It has genuinely never occurred to you how aggressive and obnoxious your posting style appears to others.

I hope it is number 3, in which case you now know and amend your posting style accordingly.

A person could have a crisis at any age.

Some of us have them at every age.

Instinctive response is a very fast acting process. If only we could harness and train it.........

Harnessing it is straightforward. Training it is unnecessary. Just accept it.

 

Since no basket can be empty, the first thing you want to do is put one apple in each basket. That leaves n-k apples to be distributed among k baskets. You could put all n-k apples in any one of the k baskets- there are k ways to do that. You could put n-k-1 apples in one basket, one apple in another basket. There are k choices for the first basket, k- 1 choices for the second basket so there are k(k-1) ways to do that. Continue.

Alternatively, he could try doing his homework a little earlier and, when he asks for help, show how far he has got up until that point and why he thinks he has got stuck.

I think Logic has nothing to do with Math or Science. If you look at human history you will realise that we knew a lot about Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics etc before getting into formal logic. The age of the word "logic" is less than age of words like Astronomy,Mathematics etc. Formal Logic was introduced by Greeks, much after the Sumerians and Egyptians, who were advanced in Astronomy and Mathematics.

Logic depends on Science and Math, not vice versa.

You are describing the point at which logic was placed on a formal footing. Such success as was enjoyed by early "science" and mathematics was made possible by the application of informal logic. The limits of that success were arguably the result of the informality of that logic.

In fact I think it is very important to identify racism and ideological bias when you see it because some people can be easily persuaded in to thinking that these people are not racist and are just promoting objective reasoned science when the truth is that most of them are racist.

I'll try one last time:

1. You are working from a game plan that says anyone who argues, more than in passing, for differences in intelligence related to race is almost certainly a racist.

2. This is precipitate and unscientific.

3. More to the point, it is less effective at combating racism than attacking their data and their arguments.

May I ask, and I understand if you wish not to answer, have you been a victim of racism, or are you following the traditional enraged white middle class posturing¹, or......?

1. You see how inflammatory language can discourage open discussion.

Randolpin, is there any particular reason that you suspect that logic may be inadequate to the task of "describing reality"?

 

I don't see a problem with the words that I used.

 

I do understand that is what you believe. Unfortunately I believe that compounds the problem.

Note: While my statement above may not be welcome I hope it does not come across as belligerent or disrespectful. What if I had instead posted this.

Well of course that nonsense is what you believe! I am not at all surprised. Unfortunately such a ridiculous attitude just exacerbates a problem that you have created.

Which of these two options is more likely to encourage open dialogue and the possibility of moving towards a mutual understanding? Which of these is closest to the style you are using? The first question is rhetorical. I shall answer the latter: the first style is more reasonable, calmer and non-judgmental, but your style, in the posts I have commented on, is closer to the second.

They do not reflect negatively on my temperament and in context clearly show the absurdity and dishonesty of my opponent.

Calling your opponent (a telling word in itself) absurd and dishonest is likely very satisfying, but it does nothing to promote productive debate. Might your time not be better spent demonstrating their absurdity and dishonesty rather than simply alleging it?

I don't believe racists should be let off the hook when it comes to misusing science to suit their ideological agenda. Do you have any idea how common it is for these people to claim that they are not racist only to make blatantly racist comments?

Well, It is your thread, but I thought the objective of the thread was to discuss the relationship between race and intelligence. From your words here it would be logical and on-topic to demonstrate the falsity of any questionable data they produced, or to challenge misinterpretations of data. That in itself would be the best way of undermining their arguments, whether they are inherently racist or not.

As to how common such behaviour is, I have no idea. I doubt you do either. You may have many personal examples to recount, but I don't place much credence on anecdote other than to provide suggestions of possible interesting issues to investigate.

I do not believe that stating there is bias in scholarship and people with ulterior motives for supporting this idea should be off limits in this discussion. Exposing the ideological bias of your opponent is relevant when you recognize that they are not having a legitimate scientific discussion nor an honest conversation.

Fair enough, but you will get a better hearing from those sitting in a neutral position, or even opposed position if you challenge the arguments and not the individual.

If you are going to claim you are not racist and do not have an agenda we should be able to discuss that and I have given posters every opportunity to defend that position some people are suggesting that this should not be done. How else are you going to test the validity of the claim?

Why should I wish to test the validity of the claim? I really don't care if some entity on an internet forum is, or is not a racist. I do care that attacking a possible racist rather than their arguments will be a poor way of combating racism.

Finally, I think your thread title contains a possible fallacy. "Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?" I am not convinced that we evolved into separate races.

 

I am being calm and I have clearly given Bering Strait the chance to defend his arguments. Now he is blatantly misrepresenting my comments. Bering Strait, why don't you address my arguments instead of trying to dissect and distort what I am saying in my posts? Anyone who can read knows that what you are saying isn't true. If you are going to compare your intelligence to Graves I recommend that you identify yourself and share your academic achievements instead of making outrageous boasts. I am not trying to deify Graves. You seem to be becoming unhinged with every post. I recommend that you settle down and use some common sense in your future posts.

You assert you are being calm and yet you choose emotive words and phrases such as "blatantly" and "outrageous boasts", exactly the kinds of words I had cautioned you not to use.

Motive for the caution: I applaud your opposition to racism and do not wish to see you shut down. It is your methodolgy/tone that I object to.

I return to my original point, which is now being echoed more powerfully by Zapatos: it is possible to consider that there may be "racial" differences in intelligence and still not be a racist. It would be helpful if you focused on the evidence for or against this possibility, rather than questioning the motives of someone who so asserts. Your suspicions may (or may not) be well grounded, but discussion of them is incidental to the focus of this thread.

Where is this imaginary army of posters coming after me? If you look at the poll the posters here overwhelmingly rejected the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence and only a few people are posting. You and Over 9000 have tried to revive this thread for what purpose I do not know but considering your history as a racist poster on this board and elsewhere I find it hilarious that you would suggest that you yourself are not a racist.

I just want to go on record for noting that I am not overwhelmingly, or even provisionally rejecting the idea that there are racial differences in intelligence. Nor am I asserting that there are. I think our definition of intelligence and the impact of cultural and educational differences makes this currently impractical to discern. Based on this lukewarm position do you wish to suggest that I am a racist? In order not to further disrupt this thread feel free to pm me with your opinion on the matter.

Guys, I recommend you both calm down a little. When tempers get frayed moderators tend not to pay undue heed to who started a slanging match, only as to who is participating in it. Let's focus purely on the facts, halt comments on each others posting styles and motives, and avoid emotive language entirely.

Interesting. I see your point though.

As per my point 4 in post #3.

Thanks in advance! Please be brutal!

I love being brutal. Please post an executive summary of your hypothesis.

You can sit in a voting booth, talk to yourself and nobody will hear you

We are more likely to get hit twice by lightning, does our vote really matter?

You are absolutely correct. You should never vote. Please avoid doing so in future. Indeed I encourage all of you to follow this advice.

I assure you it is purely coincidental that your absence from the polling booth will increase the power of my vote.

This is actually rather embarrassing but I used to think there were sharks in the deep end of the olympic swimming pool and that's why I wasn't allowed to go that far. I'd swim half way down the pool and begin to panic, trying to swim as fast as I could back to the shallow end. I thought they hid at the bottom of the pool, along the black lane markings.

Well that's just silly! Obviously they would have been attacked by the giant squid.

I really don't want anyone else to be around when I eat chocolate. They are liable to say something and distract me from the pleasure.

In no particular order.

1. Write down, in a short, single sentence the precise objective of your study on a Post It Note. Place that on your monitor, or in a prominent position in your work space. Whenever you feel like quitting your study read the objective and refocus.

2. Always read relevant study material for half an hour just before going to sleep. Research suggests that such timing is favourable to memorising.

3. Find the most interesting portion of your study subject and focus on that. You will find it easier to study the part you find the most interesting and in studying that deeply you will still acquire strong peripheral knowledge.

4. Write down fundamentals on cards. Topic in Big Letters and a concise statement of the topic. Pull them out at random, look at the topic and imagine the statement without looking at it.

5. If you are feeling blah take a rolled up newspaper and beat it to pieces against an item of furniture. The adrenalin rush will carry you through another twenty or thirty minutes of study.

Cats might not be regarded as suitable observers.

Indeed. Even when they know they are dead they won't share the information with humans.

Everything is a wave, different possibilities. Imagine every decision you make as if you are on a wave. Imagine the double slit expirment using a wave pushing the particle. Ger rid of arrow of time and use wave of time.

In what way does a wave represent different possibilities?

I don't see how my decision process relates to the form of a wave. Can you explain?

And I cannot imagine how a wave pushing a particle in the double slit experiment would either alter the result, or give additional insight to the result. Can you explain?