minarchist
Regular Member
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.
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.
I thought his post body would have just said "breathing" 
