Tabula rasa, or science denial of the left

[Caracasus]

Horseshit mate. You realise that logical fallacies aren't some sort of trump card you can pull out your arse when you find yourself on the losing side, right? In this instance the OP's form of creating these kinds of posts to veil the utter ludicrousness of their argument is relevant. OP argues dishonestly and dresses up their bullshit in an attempt to frame anyone disagreeing with them as agreeing with a strawman point because that's literally the only way they can seem to win, they've got form in the past for doing so and they're doing so here.

And now you're begging to be tossed in the briar patch.

Who said anything about winning an argument? Seems to me that the OP's argument can be conceded as correct (some leftists are irrationally apeshit, examples in queue) and we can move on to sports and the weather.

It's painfully obvious what the OP is doing here. I'm simply spelling it out because I'd hate to think that they walked away with the impression they'd somehow managed to get one over on people. I've got a mate a bit like that, a nice enough guy but a compulsive liar. Trouble is, we've all grown so bored of calling him out on his bullshit that his lies have become bigger and bigger. He's taken an absence of vocalized disbelief as a sign that we all believe him.

[Darussalam]

Horseshit mate. You realise that logical fallacies aren't some sort of trump card you can pull out your arse when you find yourself on the losing side, right? In this instance the OP's form of creating these kinds of posts to veil the utter ludicrousness of their argument is relevant. OP argues dishonestly and dresses up their bullshit in an attempt to frame anyone disagreeing with them as agreeing with a strawman point because that's literally the only way they can seem to win, they've got form in the past for doing so and they're doing so here.

I am not strawmanning anyone.

If leftists gang up in this thread to say "Of course we don't believe that humans are literally equal in that sense - of course we believe that there are important biological differences between average members of the sexes, of the races, all we believe is that genetic lottery is unfair and there should be redistribution downwards to the unfortunate still" - then I am presenting a strawman, and I'll happy to concede it as such.

But in fact, leftists in this thread have been quite more than happy to elaborate my points. The consensus, from what I have observed, is that hereditarianism is unacceptable in leftism, that most hereditarians are indeed crypto-fascists and racists, that insinuating biological differences do mean that you're a racist to be shunned, that humans are mostly equal aside from irrelevant trivialities that won't influence social reality, that this key dogma is non-negotiable and non-debatable, so forth and so forth.

Something tells me I'm not the one arguing dishonestly here, then...

If you gathered a group of white people, a group of black people, a group of Asians, a group of Arabs, a group of Latinos, etc. and measured the intelligence of each group, put out the mean or median figures, there would be some difference. It's a statistical inevitability that there won't be exactly equal figures from each sample group. That does not prove that one race is more intelligent than the other. And if you repeat the experiment with brand new sample groups each time, do you have reason to expect that you'd consistently get the same results with each race ranking where it did before?

Anyone who claims to think scientifically should know that: 1) The smaller a sample is, the less accurately representative it is, widening the margin of error and 2) Uncontrolled variables can affect the results

With human beings, there is no feasible way to get a sample big enough to be representative, and there are too many variables to count. How will you control for the amount of education one has received? How will you control for environmental factors which may have impacted the development of some of your samples? How will control for the fact that some humans are experienced in taking whatever kind of test you might give them while others wouldn't be? How will you control for language and dialect differences when interviewing or testing these subjects? How will you control for socioeconomic circumstances?

It is not that all ethnic groups are of exactly equal intelligence, it is that claiming one ethnic group is more or less intelligent than another is unfalsifiable, and therefore falls under the category of "not even wrong." A study on the intelligence of different ethnic groups can be done, but the sample is so small relative to the entire human population and the uncontrolled variables beyond count; your results would be statistically meaningless.

As for measuring factors of men and women, much of what I said above applies. We do know that men and women have distinct differences of hormones and there may even be differences of brain structure - but that alone does not back any sort of hypothesis of one sex being superior to the other or that one sex is better suited to a certain role. No one is literally identical and no one is claiming so. We reject hypotheses of racial or sex superiority because these hypotheses have either been proven wrong or are unfalsifiable.

I will go forth here and say - yes, you can do controlled experiments. You can control for many things - education, socioeconomic status, so forth and so forth. Want to control for shared environment? Just do adoption studies. Do you (and other leftists here) genuinely believed that hereditarian "crypto-fascist" scientists and researchers believe that all blacks are stupid, inferior humans? That's nonsense. It's in the title - the Bell Curve. Gaussian. Normal distribution. What is established as an empirical fact is the disparity in median intelligence.

Now, one of theses advanced in the Bell Curve is that median disparity affects the distribution on the tails. And the further the tail goes, the more extreme the disparity seems. Does the Bell Curve allow smart black people? Yes. Does it make them fewer in percentage than smart white people? Yes. Does it make them inferior? Not really. I can't vouch for white nationalists, but at least not for me.

And I'd say it's nonsense that no one is literally asserting everyone is literally equal. Affirmative action policy makes sense only by extreme egalitarian logic. The craze about small percentage of Western women in STEM makes sense only by extreme egalitarian logic. The entire craze about racism, white supremacy, oppression of marginalized communities, the need for diversity in campuses - most of them makes sense only if one regards everyone from every sort of human subgroup as equally able and held back by something else.

[Darussalam]

And now you're begging to be tossed in the briar patch.

Who said anything about winning an argument? Seems to me that the OP's argument can be conceded as correct (some leftists are irrationally apeshit, examples in queue) and we can move on to sports and the weather.

It's painfully obvious what the OP is doing here. I'm simply spelling it out because I'd hate to think that they walked away with the impression they'd somehow managed to get one over on people. I've got a mate a bit like that, a nice enough guy but a compulsive liar. Trouble is, we've all grown so bored of calling him out on his bullshit that his lies have become bigger and bigger. He's taken an absence of vocalized disbelief as a sign that we all believe him.

If you think I'm trolling, then there's a subforum to report those sort of offenses. Otherwise I'd prefer that you don't clutter this thread with repeated unsubstantiated accusations.

[Trumptonium1]

Also, a lot of the alleged differences are observed through the lenses of socially and historically constructed categories that leave a lot to be desired in terms of scientific standards.

"Why did Europeans do so much better then Africans? Because they're racially superior!"
"Or because Europe won the geography lottery and has both tons of natural resources for industry as well as a climate to encourage urbanization?"
Sub-Saharan Africa not so much.

Europe has no national resources, what?

Much less than the Chinese, Australasians and Native Americans did anyway.

[Caracasus]

It's painfully obvious what the OP is doing here. I'm simply spelling it out because I'd hate to think that they walked away with the impression they'd somehow managed to get one over on people. I've got a mate a bit like that, a nice enough guy but a compulsive liar. Trouble is, we've all grown so bored of calling him out on his bullshit that his lies have become bigger and bigger. He's taken an absence of vocalized disbelief as a sign that we all believe him.

If you think I'm trolling, then there's a subforum to report those sort of offenses. Otherwise I'd prefer that you don't clutter this thread with repeated unsubstantiated accusations.

I don't think you're trolling, I just think you're attempting to frame the debate in a dishonest manner as your actual arguments and opinions do not, and never will stand up to any real degree of scrutiny. That's not trolling, it's just a poor way of arguing.

[Darussalam]

And why is that?

I wouldn't expect a racist to understand.

Let's take it for granted that I'm a racist, or a Nazi, or whatever. Does it justify dismissing something without considering whether it could possibly be right?

Then how is it different from creationism? Then why leftists waste their time to insult creationists?

[Darussalam]

If you think I'm trolling, then there's a subforum to report those sort of offenses. Otherwise I'd prefer that you don't clutter this thread with repeated unsubstantiated accusations.

I don't think you're trolling, I just think you're attempting to frame the debate in a dishonest manner as your actual arguments and opinions do not, and never will stand up to any real degree of scrutiny. That's not trolling, it's just a poor way of arguing.

Do point out where I am being dishonest in this thread. My impression is that this has nothing to do with dishonesty and more you don't like the direction I'm heading my arguments to. And that's fine - just don't call it "dishonesty".

I am not strawmanning anyone.

If leftists gang up in this thread to say "Of course we don't believe that humans are literally equal in that sense - of course we believe that there are important biological differences between average members of the sexes, of the races, all we believe is that genetic lottery is unfair and there should be redistribution downwards to the unfortunate still" - then I am presenting a strawman, and I'll happy to concede it as such.

But in fact, leftists in this thread have been quite more than happy to elaborate my points. The consensus, from what I have observed, is that hereditarianism is unacceptable in leftism, that most hereditarians are indeed crypto-fascists and racists, that insinuating biological differences do mean that you're a racist to be shunned, that humans are mostly equal aside from irrelevant trivialities that won't influence social reality, that this key dogma is non-negotiable and non-debatable, so forth and so forth.

Something tells me I'm not the one arguing dishonestly here, then...

[Heloin]

I wouldn't expect a racist to understand.

Let's take it for granted that I'm a racist, or a Nazi, or whatever. Does it justify dismissing something without considering whether it could possibly be right?

I hate when topics I'm actually quilified to talk about explode while I'm sleeping. Race realism, eugenics, and everything else you have been peddling as truths the "left" just doesn't get are all disproven and false. I can happily dismiss it out of hand because even giving it the vaguest passing thought is just plain insulting.

Then how is it different from creationism? Then why leftists waste their time to insult creationists?

Because a scary amount of people, some of whom have real power, believe in it and use this belief to push there climate change isn't happening myth.

[Bombadil]

Ironically only one person is talking about ‘leftists’ throughout the thread whereas I don’t see much about ‘rightist’ - one person is talking through an ideological prism whereas others are talking to the points.

And that one person is accusing the others of ideological bias.

EDIT: 2 people if were to separate the poster created today with 5 posts to their name..

[Darussalam]

Ironically only one person is talking about ‘leftists’ throughout the thread whereas I don’t see much about ‘rightist’ - one person is talking through an ideological prism whereas others are talking to the points.

And that one person is accusing the others of ideological bias.

...seriously?

"Racist" is there since the first page. "White supremacist" followed a short while later. Supposedly I can't be an individualist because I accept biological determinism. An overwhelming part of the thread has been about racist, racist, racist. I approvingly quote WHITE SUPREMACISTS and abet their agenda. I have RACIST motives and priors underneath. Most people don't even bother to move past the ideological lens. When I mentioned leftists, I made an observation. I never, for once, asserted that hereditarianism precludes leftism. But others do apparently think that you can't be a hereditarian if you're not a RACIST and WHITE SUPREMACIST. You're a racist and a white supremacist first, then you "peddle bullshit science". Why is the reverse could not be true as well - you're a leftist first, and then you peddle bullshit science?

[Heloin]

Ironically only one person is talking about ‘leftists’ throughout the thread whereas I don’t see much about ‘rightist’ - one person is talking through an ideological prism whereas others are talking to the points.

And that one person is accusing the others of ideological bias.

EDIT: 2 people if were to separate the poster created today with 5 posts to their name..

The OP points at the right then asks for an examination of the left. It isn't exactly tu quoque, but the OP (and the thread title!!!) specifically directs at the left.

What does that tell us, my dear Watson?

That there using the fact there is some leftist bias against some scientific ideas (someone already mentioned GMOs for that example) as an excuse to peddle race realism.

What do I win?

[Bombadil]

Ironically only one person is talking about ‘leftists’ throughout the thread whereas I don’t see much about ‘rightist’ - one person is talking through an ideological prism whereas others are talking to the points.

And that one person is accusing the others of ideological bias.

...seriously?

"Racist" is there since the first page. "White supremacist" followed a short while later. Supposedly I can't be an individualist because I accept biological determinism. An overwhelming part of the thread has been about racist, racist, racist. I approvingly quote WHITE SUPREMACISTS and abet their agenda. I have RACIST motives and priors underneath. Most people don't even bother to move past the ideological lens. When I mentioned leftists, I made an observation. I never, for once, asserted that hereditarianism precludes leftism. But others do apparently think that you can't be a hereditarian if you're not a RACIST and WHITE SUPREMACIST. You're a racist and a white supremacist first, then you "peddle bullshit science". Why is the reverse could not be true as well - you're a leftist first, and then you peddle bullshit science?

No, everything on the first page talks to racist debate points, only later given context of other posts it it suggested you ascribe and push these debate points.

Mostly people have pointed out why these studies and debates points are used by racist theorists to push an agenda and, at some point, as someone said.. if it walks and talks like a duck.

Personally I don’t think you’re exactly a positive racist as such.. but you’ve an agenda to portray the left as.. and let’s be clear here.. ‘just as deluded as those who believe in creationism or a lack of climate change..’.

It’s at once accepting the delusion of those beliefs but defending in creating a false equivalence.

Your point is to say no two people are the same, our point is to say sure but that’s no reason to discriminate against anyone.

[Jarian]

We are not equal, we have differences inherited from our ancestors. Genetic family traits exist, this can include the way we think.

But I am not saying this is a bad thing.
Imagine if there was only one breed of dog.

EIDIT: inherited the way my father and grandfather think, despite minimal childhood communication. It sucks.

[Darussalam]

The OP points at the right then asks for an examination of the left. It isn't exactly tu quoque, but the OP (and the thread title!!!) specifically directs at the left.

What does that tell us, my dear Watson?

That there using the fact there is some leftist bias against some scientific ideas (someone already mentioned GMOs for that example) as an excuse to peddle race realism.

What do I win?

Tabula rasa is already the title of the thread. I think it's obvious what is going to be discussed.

[The Grims]

I wouldn't expect a racist to understand.

Let's take it for granted that I'm a racist, or a Nazi, or whatever. Does it justify dismissing something without considering whether it could possibly be right?

Then how is it different from creationism? Then why leftists waste their time to insult creationists?

Would a devout christian need to defend himself if someone attacks his faith with the argument "Christians say Jesus ascended to heaven in a Space Shuttle - but spaceshuttles did not exisg back then so their faith is bullcrap" ?

[Trumptonium1]

"Subtly"

You are very generous.

OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.

Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.

This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

[Heloin]

That there using the fact there is some leftist bias against some scientific ideas (someone already mentioned GMOs for that example) as an excuse to peddle race realism.

What do I win?

Tabula rasa is already the title of the thread. I think it's obvious what is going to be discussed.

Before I read the op I thought you just wanted a Latin header to sound cool. Besides I hadn't heard anyone use the phrase since my last year in Uni when a crazy kid in class decide to write his oral presentation on *ahem* "The Failings of Native Americans".

[Darussalam]

-edited out for bottompaged-

[Heloin]

OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.

Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.

This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

They were fucking not. I'd be living a nice and easy life now if Apartheid never ended in Rhodesia and South Africa, but categorically they were not.

[Darussalam]

Tabula rasa is already the title of the thread. I think it's obvious what is going to be discussed.

Before I read the op I thought you just wanted a Latin header to sound cool. Besides I hadn't heard anyone use the phrase since my last year in Uni when a crazy kid in class decide to write his oral presentation on *ahem* "The Failings of Native Americans".

Well, then that's none of my fault, and the deflection strategy you're ascribing to me is false.

[Bombadil]

OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.

Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.

This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

Maybe we should just hand over control of America to the Chinese and Jews, they’re demonstrably smarter than whites.

[Darussalam]

This isn't controversial. Zimbabwe and South Africa were better off under colonial rule. This isn't even something controversial among blacks.

Maybe we should just hand over control of America to the Chinese and Jews, they’re demonstrably smarter than whites.

You're saying this like this is something any of us consider detestable.

Add Asian-Indians to the mix, please.

[Bombadil]

Maybe we should just hand over control of America to the Chinese and Jews, they’re demonstrably smarter than whites.

You're saying this like this is something any of us consider detestable.

Add Asian-Indians to the mix, please.

Well I don’t know, we need to clearly establish exactly who’s the smartest and give them complete control.. I hear Ashkenazi Jews are the best..

[Jarian]

We need to accept that we are all different.
But we can still treat each other with respect.
I went to a specialist school full of differences (mostly normal folks with dyslexia) and we all got along.

[Heloin]

Before I read the op I thought you just wanted a Latin header to sound cool. Besides I hadn't heard anyone use the phrase since my last year in Uni when a crazy kid in class decide to write his oral presentation on *ahem* "The Failings of Native Americans".

Well, then that's none of my fault, and the deflection strategy you're ascribing to me is false.

I'm not calling you the crazy kid, that has nothing to do with anything really.

But the idea anyone is innately better than another for being "white" or "asian" is a falsehood. I'm not denying biological differences between humans. A kid from china won't be able to drink milk in there 20's and a kid from Sweden will need extra sun protection in the tropics. There are more serious ones of course but none of there differences affect intelligence in any way what so every. People are born more or less intelligent from each other but that is based on individual factors from ones own genetic mutations and environment, not sweeping genetic factors over entire people groups.