What you believe is your thing, I happen to know that in serious debate outside internet forums and such, he will take a very similar position, so I do take his comments serious. If he wants to listen to counter arguments is irrelevant for that.



I never said that, I said that people in general have this tendency of ignoring things they don't want to see. That applies to myself, and everyone else, including but not limited to those who dismiss Scandum's opinion out of hand.



This is where I think you are wrong. First, the analogy fails on a number of relevant details, namely that holocaust revisionists don't have any real data to base themselves on, whereas people like Scandum actually have such data. Second, holocaust revisionists seldom if ever use sound logic, whereas much of the argument Scandum is making does in fact use sound logic.

Because of those 2 'details', dismissing this out of hand just makes it all the more attractive to smart but naive people, since it allows playing the underdog card.

You don't have to spend any efford on this if you don't want to, nothing wrong with that, but I do believe you are wrong when saying it is useless to spend efford on showing why Scandum and similarely minded people are in fact wrong. It may not convince them, but it will help others seeing through the veil of existing data and sound logic.

I never said that one shouldn't fight racism, etc., in general, so I'm not sure where the "similarly minded people" bit comes from. What I said is that doing it here with Dr. Science Scandum is a waste of time, unless it is amusing to you to see what silliness he will come up with next.

The point of the analogy was not to compare who does and doesn't use sound logic, but to say that not every crackpot who comes along needs to start yet another ages-long explanation of why they're wrong. If these crackpots were actually taken seriously, that would be a different story entirely, but basically in this instance you're preaching to the choir when it comes to everybody except for Scandum. To be honest, I actually think that you give far too much credit to his "sound logic" and "data", because it uses it in ways utterly nonsensical while going on to say that the Sahara is uninhabited.

I'd be interested to see if you would dismiss out of hand somebody who claimed that the Earth is flat, or if you would instead launch into a lecture on why, in fact, it is round, citing data etc. Eventually, some ideas are so discredited that we really don't need to go through the motions again to show why.

Anyhow, I think I've said enough on this, so that's that. :rolleyes:

Hey Crat!

Only 10 more posts and this thread has made it halfway to hell. :)

Modern IQ tests are about problem solving, not about knowledge. In fact, IQ tests that measure knowledge show a smaller gap between races in the US than IQ tests that don't measure any knowledge at all.


Regarding the accusations, I haven't proclaimed one race to be superior to others, besides, it's silly to call an arbitrary grouping 'superior', especially when there are so many variables to consider.

Given the negative associations with the term racist I think Cratylus is way out of line.

I think he was pretty right on. When you make the outright claim that there is an intelligence gap between races you are suggesting that one race is genetically superior to the other. That is indeed racism.

Even in the same statement you claim no racism you say that IQ tests that measure knowledge show a smaller gap, albeit a gap, between races than ones that measure problem solving–Which you claim there is a big gap in. You can claim statements like that are supported by facts–But thats indeed, by definition, racism.

Edit: Also, maybe you should throw in a few female/gay/jew/minority disparaging remarks like you normally do in other threads.

LAWL

In scandum world, I'm the bad guy.

Thank you, scandum. Just when I was feeling sorry for you, you rescued me with your laughable swipe.

That's much better!

As to your claims, I won't get into the details of the obvious. I'm pretty satisfied that in a discussion
of eugenics, your stance on which races have eugenically appropriate genes has thus far been
pretty dern clear. I'm sorry you don't like being called racist. Perhaps you find "racialist" more
euphonious. Or "hereditarian?"

I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but your racist spew is racist spew. Man up and deal.

Still, thanks. Scandum complaining that someone else is way out of line is win!

I do wonder sometimes if this comedy is intentional on your part.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

For someone on a sex offender list you're one to talk.

wat

this is getting out of hand guys, no more personal attacks please.

Is this another baseless accusation?

Oh I get it. He's trying to illustrate how outraged he is about being called a racist
by making up something about me.

Classy, Scandum. You're a smoothie all the way.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Temporary thread lock as I review the thread.