Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: A liberal behavior that I find extremely annoying

  1. #1
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495

    Thumbs down A liberal behavior that I find extremely annoying

    When a person looks at the available evidence and comes to a sincere conclusion, free of a hidden agenda or ulterior motive, that happens to be politically incorrect, liberals foam at the mouth and accuse this individual of moral turpitude. It's as if they either lack the intelligence to understand the difference between a descriptive statement (an assertion about what is) and a prescriptive statement (an assertion about what should be), or they are deliberately blurring the distinction between these two items. This behavior stifles free inquiry and is absolutely repugnant to the ideals of the Englightenment (which is ironic, since the Left likes to think that they are carrying the torch for the Enlightenment). I shall give two examples.

    A person who concludes that the median male IQ is higher than the median female IQ, and who does not state that women should have fewer rights than men, is treated as absolutely wicked. This person has done nothing but make a descriptive statement, which can be debated on its own merits, but liberals act as if this person has made an evil prescriptive statement. This individual can point to well-designed studies and form a highly cogent argument explaining the data (our male hunter-gatherer ancestors had to form complex hunting strategies, whereas our female hunter-gatherer ancestors mostly only needed to engage in rote memorization of edible and non-edible things, etc.), yet liberals will act as if this person is saying that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant, which is a gross non-sequitur. They will shriek at the top of their lungs that this person is claiming that there are no intelligent women (how they get that from " the median male IQ is higher than the median female IQ" is completely beyond me), and try to ruin this person's life (not at all unlike how scientists who challenged prevailing dogmas were treated centuries ago).

    A person who concludes that the median IQ of populations whose human ancestors evolved in temeperate areas is higher than the median IQ of populations whose human ancestors evolved in tropical areas, and who does not advocate fewer rights for members of the latter, is literally treated as being worse than a child molestor. This individual can point to well-designed studies (such as those by Murray and Hernstein, who were called neo-Nazis, even though the latter was an Ashkenazi Jew) and form a highly cogent argument explaining the data (humans are primates, which are inherently tropical animals, and those humans who lived in temperate areas therefore faced much stronger selection pressure for intelligence (having to plan ahead for winter, and biodiversity is inversely proportional to latitude, thereby leaving less game for them to hunt) than those living relatively easy lives in the tropics, causing more unintelligent persons per capita to be culled from the herd in temperate areas than in tropical areas), yet liberals will act as thought this person is calling for certain people to be gassed, which is atrocious slander. They will stomp their feet and demand that said person be severely punished (e.g., if this person is in academia, his or her professional life will become very unpleasant at the hands of the namby pamby bullies).

    This is all very reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984. Near the end of the story, Winston Smith sincerely thought that his tormentor was holding up four fingers (and he was correct in this conclusion), but his descriptive statement was treated as evil. How can there be any evil in stating one's sincere conclusion after looking at the evidence, devoid of any hidden agenda or ulterior motive, and with the love of truth as one's only reason for doing so? I find it absolutely reprehensible that liberals think that science should be held hostage by emotions.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Hmmm. Let's test this.

    I conclude that the theory that human ancestors were "hunter gatherers" is false. I conclude that human intelligence has devolved over time.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    It is impossible to create a quantity such as "IQ" in an objective fashion what is not inherently biased towards the prescriptive definition of terms like "intelligence" applied by its creators.

    The only thing stupider than "IQ testing" is ascribing it any merit, and the only this stupider than that is this thread.

    Incidentally, some of the smartest people I know come from "warm regions" (e.g. Africa), and some of the dumbest from cold (e.g. England).

    It is my belief, from experience, that any "data" to which you refer is undoubtedly the result of confirmation bias, in addition to relying on the less-than-useless criterion of "quantified" intelligence.

    There are certainly cultural reasons for certain evidenced traits, and it's likely that climate influences culture in predictable ways, but that's as much agreement as you'll elicit from me.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-19-2013 at 12:14 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Hmmm. Let's test this.

    I conclude that the theory that human ancestors were "hunter gatherers" is false. I conclude that human intelligence has devolved over time.
    I chose just two examples of areas where liberals are dogmatic bullies. This phenomenon is not confined to these two examples. Do you have any thoughts on this phenomenon?

    Out of curiosity though, what makes you conclude that something so incontrovertible is false? There are still a few hunter-gatherers around. It is obvious that everyone was a hunter-gatherer if you go back in time far enough.

  5. #5
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    It is impossible to create a quantity such as "IQ" in an objective fashion what is not inherently biased towards the prescriptive definition of terms like "intelligence" applied by its creators.

    The only thing stupider than "IQ testing" is ascribing it any merit, and the only this stupider than that is this thread.
    Discussing the two particular examples that I chose, on their own merits, is fine, but they are really beside the point.

    Why do you think that liberals confuse descriptive and prescriptive statements and demonize people for their sincerely-held descriptive conclusions? Do you agree or disagree that science should be free of such bullying?

    Incidentally, some of the smartest people I know come from "warm regions" (e.g. Africa), and some of the dumbest from cold (e.g. England).
    I see that you, like the liberals mentioned in the OP, seem to think (your comment makes no sense in any other context, as I never denied that you can have temperate morons and tropical geniuses) that different medians somehow means that the two distributions can have no overlap, which is absurd.

    Group A can have a higher median than Group B, and yet the highest in B can be way higher than the lowest in A.
    Last edited by minarchist; 03-19-2013 at 12:18 AM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I thought his post body would have just said "breathing"

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    I chose just two examples of areas where liberals are dogmatic bullies. This phenomenon is not confined to these two examples. Do you have any thoughts on this phenomenon?
    I understand. My thought is that a belief that humans evolved from animals gives credence to arguments that some "races"(whatever that means) are superior to others. Since liberals taut themselves as "anti-racist", it exposes a serious inconsistency in their thinking as it is my experience that liberals tend to believe humans have evolved from animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Out of curiosity though, what makes you conclude that something so incontrovertible is false? There are still a few hunter-gatherers around. It is obvious that everyone was a hunter-gatherer if you go back in time far enough.
    I don't intend to derail your thread. I disagree that it is incontrovertible, but I'll leave it at that. I do intend to start such a thread one day, but I just don't have the time right now. AND it is lower on my thread starting priorities... at the top being "Can we regain our Republic by working within the system?".

    Getting back to your OP... I see dogma and dogmatic bullies everywhere. Liberal, conservative, science, religion etc...
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-19-2013 at 12:25 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I understand. My thought is that a belief that humans evolved from animals gives credence to arguments that some "races"(whatever that means) are superior to others. Since liberals taut themselves as "anti-racist", it exposes a serious inconsistency in their thinking as it is my experience that liberals tend to believe humans have evolved from animals.
    That's just it: whatever is true is true regardless of mere human thoughts on the matter. Applying a pejorative (such as "sexist" or "racist" with the two random examples that I chose) changes absolutely nothing when it comes to objective reality.

    I don't intend to derail your thread. I disagree that it is incontrovertible, but I'll leave it at that. I do intend to start such a thread one day, but I just don't have the time right now. AND it is lower on my thread starting priorities... at the top being "Can we regain our Republic by working within the system?".
    I appreciate this.

    Getting back to your OP... I see dogma and dogmatic bullies everywhere. Liberal, conservative, science, religion etc...
    Indeed, but since liberals control the educational system and the entertainment and media industries, their bullying is the most pernicious (not to mention obnoxious).

  9. #9
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495

    Exclamation

    Imagine a hypothetical man, Mr. X. Mr. X treats men and women equally, and befriends quality people regardless of ancestry. Mr. X is a friendly, upstanding, honest citizen. He is even an avid OCer.

    Mr. X likes to read a lot, and after carefully considering all of the evidence, he comes to the two example conclusion in the OP. Is it fair to confuse Mr. X's descriptive statements with sinister prescriptive statements and treat Mr. X as if he is a lowlife scumbag?

    What is disconcerting is that this Marxist behavior spills over the confines of liberalism, with various non-liberals joining in the irrational Orwellian two minute hatefest. How utterly pathetic.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    That's just it: whatever is true is true regardless of mere human thoughts on the matter. Applying a pejorative (such as "sexist" or "racist" with the two random examples that I chose) changes absolutely nothing when it comes to objective reality.
    We are slave to our perception. Science is one of our best attempts to interject as much objective reality into our perception, but it can exclude some objective reality as well.

    Marshaul's post does well to expose the fallacy of true objective reality. Reality is always viewed through human perception. What test do you use to quantify IQ?


    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    I appreciate this.



    Indeed, but since liberals control the educational system and the entertainment and media industries, their bullying is the most pernicious (not to mention obnoxious).
    Agreed. Though one of the worst assaults to our education system has been "no child left behind"... a "Republican conservative" idea.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-19-2013 at 12:49 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    We are slave to our perception. Science is one of our best attempts to interject as much objective reality into our perception, but it can exclude some objective reality as well.

    Marshaul's post does well to expose the fallacy of true objective reality. Reality is always viewed through human perception. What test do you use to quantify IQ?
    The problem with marshaul's post is that it displays the precise behavior that I complain about in the OP. While he at least goes beyond this by doing a little arguing against the two conclusions on their merits, that is still outside the scope of this thread, as the two examples were meant to merely illustrate the larger phenomenon.

    Agreed. Though one of the worst assaults to our education system has been "no child left behind"... a "Republican conservative" idea.
    That is why establishment Republicans should be left in the dust for men like Ron Paul.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    The problem with marshaul's post is that it displays the precise behavior that I complain about in the OP. While he at least goes beyond this by doing a little arguing against the two conclusions on their merits, that is still outside the scope of this thread, as the two examples were meant to merely illustrate the larger phenomenon.
    Yes. I realize now that my response accentuated the merits of the example arguments and less to the dogmatic bullying phenomenon. With that I defer to my original comment about liberals and the inconsistency in the tendency of their beliefs.

    Further, I'll say that it appears that the US population is less able to engage in critical thinking. I base this on the discussions I see in the Senate about gun control and the apparent expectation that many people will accept such emotive argument. Dogma will flourish where emotive argument has replaced reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    That is why establishment Republicans should be left in the dust for men like Ron Paul.
    Agreed. Let's make it happen.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 03-19-2013 at 01:25 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Yes. I realize k now that my response accentuated the merits of the example arguments and less to the dogmatic bullying phenomenon. With that I defer to my original comment about liberals and the inconsistency in the tendency of their beliefs.

    Further, I'll say that it appears that the US population is less able to engage in critical thinking. I base this on the discussions I see in the Senate about gun control and the apparent expectation that many people will accept such emotive argument. Dogma will flourish where emotive argument has replaced reason.
    Do you agree that it is wrong to demonize a man who loves his mother, his wife or gf, and treats women with respect, merely because he also happens to have reached the first conclusion in the OP?

    Agreed. Let's make it happen.
    I will support his son if he runs.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028

    Emotion is the problem...

    I recently watched yet another video of Der Führer, umm, I mean, Diane Feinstein, and got a little ticked off.

    My wife told me I should not be wasting my time yelling at the screen and should be coming up with a way to counter the anti-gun arguments.

    I explained to my wife that the problem, simply, is emotion. Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and others, have had their lives touched by gun violence.

    There is no force in Heaven or on Earth that will be able to make these people see that the actual problem is the person behind the gun and not the gun itself. LOGICALLY, they know that there is no possible way to legislate good behavior, so they EMOTIONALLY attack the items they have legislated themselves the ability to legislate.

    There is, simply, no way to fight an emotional fight on logical grounds.

    There is no hospital that would allow a doctor to operate on a family member due to the emotion involved. Likewise, a judge should recuse himself or herself from any case involving family.

    Therein lies the resolution...disallow members of congress from submitting, lobbying for or voting on legislation to which they are EMOTIONALLY attached.

    Yeah. That'll happen.

    Right after they vote for congressional term limits, the OTHER way to prevent a lot of stupid legislation.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    You don't fight to change Feinstein and her ilk. Whatever refuting you do is done to impact others who happen to be listening. If you let her be emotional, and you stay rational, then she comes off as a ranting idiot, and you come off as level-headed. Folks who have not already made up their minds will flock to the rational POV. Folks who have already made up their minds, on either side of the issue, are not your target.

    Don't waste your time trying to change an emotional anti-gunner. Also as important: Don't go for the rah-rahs from the folks who already agree with you. That is off-putting to the open-minded folks whom you are really trying to reach.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    What is the point of this thread? Engrish please, some of us are slower than others.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    What is the point of this thread? Engrish please, some of us are slower than others.
    The truth is what it is regardless of how anyone feels. There is a sharp distinction between making a claim about what is and making a claim about what ought to be, and lowlifes on the Left endeavor to blur this distinction in an effort to demonize those who seek the truth in forbidden areas.
    Last edited by minarchist; 03-19-2013 at 09:19 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    I see. Thanks.

    How does truth and liberals make for good conversation?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I see. Thanks.

    How does truth and liberals make for good conversation?
    Exposing their irrational bullying behavior helps restore free inquiry. Liberals are modern-day inquisitors.

  20. #20
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    This individual
    "Egg, were you that little boy?"

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    Discussing the two particular examples that I chose, on their own merits, is fine, but they are really beside the point.

    Why do you think that liberals confuse descriptive and prescriptive statements and demonize people for their sincerely-held descriptive conclusions? Do you agree or disagree that science should be free of such bullying?
    Look at it this way:

    Let's say we all agree with your premise that people with black and brown skin are, on the average, stupider (let's cut to the chase, shall we?). What then? What possible use does this information provide us? What possible benefit may we obtain from this? Especially since, as you say, they have equal rights regardless.

    What's the point, if it isn't just about proving whites are better after all? Perhaps it's just trivia?

    That's why folks are hostile to threads like this. Any data used to bolster your argument cannot, by definition, be "scientific", for the reasons I mentioned. It's pseudo-scientific closet racism, frankly. You're desperately seeking imaginary data to fit a preformed conclusion, one which has no real-world application except to advance notions that white people are smarter, and they probably smell better, too.


    I see that you, like the liberals mentioned in the OP, seem to think (your comment makes no sense in any other context, as I never denied that you can have temperate morons and tropical geniuses) that different medians somehow means that the two distributions can have no overlap, which is absurd.

    Group A can have a higher median than Group B, and yet the highest in B can be way higher than the lowest in A.
    This might be a valid rebuttal was what I said anything other than anecdotal, and therefore of as much merit as, for instance, IQ testing. I offer it to reveal my perspective, not to prove a point. Surely someone so versed in the rigors of the scientific method should be able to see that at a glance.

    I reject the premise that there is any different median intelligence attributable to race or region of origin. I have seen absolutely nothing in all my travels and the life I've lived to support that thesis.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-19-2013 at 10:22 AM.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by minarchist View Post
    The problem with marshaul's post is that it displays the precise behavior that I complain about in the OP. While he at least goes beyond this by doing a little arguing against the two conclusions on their merits, that is still outside the scope of this thread, as the two examples were meant to merely illustrate the larger phenomenon.
    I don't believe this for a minute.

    If this is true, then why did you pick the examples you did?

    Do you have any idea how many times I've heard the precise argument, "why are liberals so anti-scientific? when you try to point out that black and brown people are smelly and stupid, they call you a racist! Those bullies!"

    I have never, ever, encountered a person who makes this argument who does it for any purpose other than to justify pre-existing racism.

    Which is fine. You said at the onset you wouldn't deprive anybody of rights based on your conclusion, so I really don't care if you're racist – although I might make fun of you for it in the future.

    But if you're really just using that example as a point not about people from warm regions, but about the political left, you chose a particularly terrible one, as you picked one without any scientific merit whatsoever, and presented it as fact expecting us all to agree.

    Frankly, I don't really give a damn about the point you're trying to make, as it's ruined by your misuse of the term "liberal" to refer to the illiberal neo-left. All that's left is a bunch of crap about how people from temperate regions are stupider, which is facially absurd.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-19-2013 at 10:34 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Liberals do believe that folks from "temperate regions" (the south?) are stupid-er than they are. Heck, even liberals in the south think that their neighbors are stupid-er than they are.

    Evidence: SFGate commenters for a quintessential liberal view of southerners.

    Now, California has temperate regions and those folks think that rednecks, specifically southern rednecks, are mighty dang stupid.

    The last words of a redneck....."Watch this." In my early years I survived each use of that phrase. I no longer expect to use that phrase in the future.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Look at it this way:

    Let's say we all agree with your premise that people with black and brown skin are, on the average, stupider (let's cut to the chase, shall we?). What then? What possible use does this information provide us? What possible benefit may we obtain from this? Especially since, as you say, they have equal rights regardless.
    Why do people care about the age of the universe? At present, the answer to that question has zero practical utility, yet the question and its answer fascinate people anyway. To be human is to be curious. For many people, knowledge is an end unto itself. The two examples from the OP are not exceptions.

    What's the point, if it isn't just about proving whites are better after all? Perhaps it's just trivia?
    Who said anything about "white" superiority? There are other temperate peoples. IQ data actually shows that northeastern Asians have a slightly higher median IQ than Europeans. Those who have meet me at OC events can vouch that I am of European descent, so I cannot be accused of trying to prove the superiority of my meta-group if I believe in the validity of the studies that I alluded to in the preceding sentence (and I do).

    That's why folks are hostile to threads like this.
    Impugning a person's character because of what that person asserts about what is (as distinct from what that person asserts about what ought to be, as explained in the OP) is wrong. Period. End of discussion.

    Such behavior is for self-described Marxist scoundrels in academia like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin (I am serious, these men were/are proud Marxists), and Jared Diamond and their young, brainwashed sycophants. They threw $hit fits over colleagues (Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Hernstein, Charles Murray, Linda Gottfredson, etc.) who made descriptive statements like those in the OP. Do you seriously want to be in the company of the first list, my fellow gun owner and OCer?!?! :eek

    Any data used to bolster your argument cannot, by definition, be "scientific", for the reasons I mentioned. It's pseudo-scientific closet racism, frankly.
    You appear to be making a circular argument here.

    You're desperately seeking
    I am not desperately seeking anything, and you cannot read my mind. I have been polite with you, and I ask that you not do anything like this again so civility is maintained in this discussion.

    imaginary data
    The data is real. Whether or not the studies from whence the data came were well-designed is another topic. For the umpteenth time, this thread is not about whether or not the two example conclusions are correct. Rather, it is about how liberal $hitbags (you know, those people trying to strip us of RKBA right now) confuse statements about what is with statements about what ought to be.

    to fit a preformed conclusion,
    Once again, you cannot read my mind, so you have no business asserting that I have a preformed conclusion (and for the umpteenth plus one time, the examples are just illustrative of the behaviorial phenomenon).

    one which has no real-world application except to advance notions that white people are smarter, and they probably smell better, too.
    As I pointed out above, there is plenty of scientific research (which sucks up a lot of taxpayer money) into questions that have little to no practical application at present (such as the age of the universe). Pure curiosity is a valid motive, regardless of what you say (though it would be nice if taxpayer money wasn't used).

    This might be a valid rebuttal was what I said anything other than anecdotal, and therefore of as much merit as, for instance, IQ testing. I offer it to reveal my perspective, not to prove a point. Surely someone so versed in the rigors of the scientific method should be able to see that at a glance.
    For the umpteenth time plus two, this thread is about the behavioral phenomenon, and not the two examples from the OP. My point is this: even if one or both of the conclusions in the OP are incorrect, that makes no difference, because science works by making statements that are later disproven ("science is built with the bones of dead theories"), and people have the right to make descriptive statements, regardless of whether those statements turn out to be correct, incorrect, or somewhere in between.

    I reject the premise that there is any different median intelligence attributable to race or region of origin. I have seen absolutely nothing in all my travels and the life I've lived to support that thesis.
    Your anecdotal experiences do not carry more weight than how history has played out (not that this has anything to do with the main point of the thread, which relates to the philosophy of morality, and not to psychometrics and the validity of IQ testing).

    I don't believe this for a minute.

    If this is true, then why did you pick the examples you did?
    I picked these two examples because they happen to be among the things that throw the liberals (as I state above, they're the folks trying to disarm us right now) into the most insane of rages. Their fits of rage regarding sex and race have been so energetic and childlike since the 1960s, that many non-liberals have professed varyiung degrees of political correctness in recent years (you may very well be a good example of this, based on your behavior in this thread). But I digress. The two examples from the OP were included in the OP because they serve as very good windows into the liberal mentality. Liberals also behave similarly when people make descriptive statements about things like economics, but the intensity of the reaction against someone who professes Austrian economics is nowhere near as harsh as it is towards scientists who self-profess gender and/or race-realism (their term, not mine). So yes, I could have chosen examples in economics, or educational policy, but I think that you'll concede that liberals do not react as intensely towards descriptive statements in those areas as they do towards descriptive statements in the area of psychometrics.

    Do you have any idea how many times I've heard the precise argument, "why are liberals so anti-scientific? when you try to point out that black and brown people are smelly and stupid, they call you a racist! Those bullies!"
    I do not have any idea how many times you've heard that. Has it been few or many?

    I have never, ever, encountered a person who makes this argument who does it for any purpose other than to justify pre-existing racism.
    (1) I have no idea how large your sample size is (that is absolutely critical).

    (2) Just because you have not encountered something, does not mean that it does not exist.

    (3) Once again, assertioins about what is are completely different than assertions about what ought to be, and it is wrong to impugn the character of someone merely for doing the former.

    For the record, I am friends with a hardcore libertarian couple from Seattle who moved to this part of Virginia a few years ago (they love guns and the husband OCs, btw). The husband is white and the wife is black. I have told them about both examples from the OP a while ago, and we're still friends. The wife is black and female, and she takes offense at neither. She fully grasps the difference between descriptive statements and prescriptive statements, and she understands that statements about two large groups have no reflection on any given individual from either group. What does annoy her though, is the behavior of knee-jerk, dogmatic liberals who behave the way that I describe in the OP to smear their opponents. Perhaps you would not have said what I quoted immediately above if we were having this discussion at an OC event with them sitting next to me, as you would see that I am friends with both of them.

    Which is fine. You said at the onset you wouldn't deprive anybody of rights based on your conclusion, so I really don't care if you're racist – although I might make fun of you for it in the future.
    Why do you think that an assertion about what is---completely devoid of any attached assertion about what ought to be---is grounds for mockery?!?!

    But if you're really just using that example as a point not about people from warm regions, but about the political left, you chose a particularly terrible one,
    See above. I could have chosen Austrian economics, school vouchers/home schooling, etc., and those would have been underwhelming examples, because liberals do not spas that badly over those in comparison to how they freak out over the two examples that I chose for the OP.

    as you picked one without any scientific merit whatsoever,
    Men and women (see the above list) who are much better educated than you in the area of psychometrics would vehemently disagree with you, but that's okay, because that isn't what this thread is about in any case.

    and presented it as fact expecting us all to agree.
    For the last time, you cannot read my mind.

    Frankly, I don't really give a damn about the point you're trying to make, as it's ruined by your misuse of the term "liberal" to refer to the illiberal neo-left.
    So sue me for using (1) contemporary usage, and (2) the term that they apply to themselves.

    All that's left is a bunch of crap about how people from temperate regions are stupider, which is facially absurd.
    I shall repeat:

    Men and women (see the above list) who are much better educated than you in the area of psychometrics would vehemently disagree with you, but that's okay, because that isn't what this thread is about in any case.

    Have a good day.

    ETA: Actually, you're quite wrong that there are no practical applications of the two OP conclusions if they are indeed correct. Billions of dollars in local, state, and federal tax money are spent on education. The authoritarian Left, like a bully, declares that the hereditarian position is incorrect (or they outright refuse to consider it). That means that any difference in academic performance between boys and girls, or between children of different ancestries, is assumed a priori---ON FAITH---to be a result of various factors in the environments of the children. Therefore, we, as taxpayers, are being gouged on a faith-based assumption. If the hereditarian position were demonstrated true beyond a reasonable doubt, we could then lobby for lower taxes, as money cannot fix performance gaps that are not caused by bad environments.
    Last edited by minarchist; 03-19-2013 at 03:11 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member minarchist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Liberals do believe that folks from "temperate regions" (the south?)
    "In geography, temperate or tepid latitudes of the globe lie between the tropics and the polar regions."

    So yes, that would include the southern U.S., but it also includes the northern U.S.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_climate

    are stupid-er than they are. Heck, even liberals in the south think that their neighbors are stupid-er than they are.

    Evidence: SFGate commenters for a quintessential liberal view of southerners.

    Now, California has temperate regions and those folks think that rednecks, specifically southern rednecks, are mighty dang stupid.

    The last words of a redneck....."Watch this." In my early years I survived each use of that phrase. I no longer expect to use that phrase in the future.
    The second example in the OP relates to where your ancestors spent tens of thousands of years, not where you and your family have lived for a few generations (evolutionary change takes a bit more than a few generations).

    I do appreciate your humor in any case.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •