darkhall67 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2010 at 11:12am:



But they ARE just myths.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 18^th, 2010 at 11:11am:


AH, we let in about 12,000 shoe shiners each year. We have a skilled migration program too. That lets in about 200,000, give or take, so it's hardly your idea.

The shoe shiners are not necessarily unskilled workers - many Iraqi refugees that came to to Australia when Saddam was in power were upper-middle class professionals. A large number were academics.

You're resentful of the shoe shiners because they "dilute the social and ethnic mix of the country," but you claim that your viewpoint isn't based on race.

We let in the shoeshiners because we're in the UN. Almost all developed countries are signatories to the Convention of Refugees. Doc Evatt, an Australian, was head of the UN when we signed up.

I must admit, it's hard to have a dialogue with someone who believes that we have no obligation to stop people being tortured and killed by various regimes, some of whom we've supported or are at war with - and that saving people's lives is too expensive.

Thank you for choosing to mingle with us though.

Quote:


Why does Japan still continue to resist mass immigration and is still doing fine (despite endless calls from the economic press to open up its borders because of its aging demographics), then? Many non-white nations disagree with your rhetoric.

Quote:


Sorry, you can't speak categorically about "race" if you don't even know what one is. You are confusing nationality for race, and the Celts were a cultural group. The idea that "race" is some kind of cultural construction is nonscientific nonsense; that is something that can be started categorically. Human races give or take conform fairly neatly to the same classification rules that we apply to determining subspecies in other animals as well.

Avise JC, Ball RM. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. In: Futuyama D, Antonovics J, eds. Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology.

2) O'Brien SJ, Mayr E. Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science. 1991;251(4998):1187-1189. obrien.pdf

There are so many nonsense arguments regarding the taxonomic validity of the concept of race it is difficult to know even where to begin when discussing them. I have heard them all.

Quote:


Yes. But a nation ultimately has the ability to choose the form of a nation that it desires to have. A variant of nationalism eschews the idea that a nation is nothing more than "concept" or an "idea region" but that it is in some sense a biological continuity of a particular people. This can be implicit or explicit.

Quote:


I think you just described a kind of anti-science, not science. You're saying that "theories" have to describe things that will supposedly (in your view, anyway) make the world a better place. Hence why you swallow completely the "race is a social construct" line, which I will remind you is certainly half-baked. I thought theories were proposed and compete with each other to determine what is true. Truth has no bearing on whether you personally consider the potential consequences of a theory good or bad.

I am interested. You have never actually explained what is half-baked about what I say here. You continuously dismiss my arguments as non-scientific. I have presented you with argumentation and data before and you ignore it, call it "non-science" without backing up why. You're ignorant to psychometrics and dismiss it as a non-science. You're ignorant to sociobiology and dismiss it as a non-science or an illegitimate avenue of enquiry. I'm not bothered by the fact that you disagree or at least are not convinced. That is fine by me. I'm not convinced by every aspect of it completely either. However, you are letting your own political dispositions prevent you from  even approaching the most modest stance in saying that"yes, this could possibly be true." We're not dealing with flat-earth or intelligent design nonsense here. This is serious science backed up by some of the most prominent researchers of the 20th century. They are heretics yes, perhaps well because as you say, their theories conflict with liberal ideas. I'm not pretending I don't have an agenda; everybody does. But I still don't accept or considers things if they categorically are beyond the confines of any modicum of possibility. The things that E.O Wilson, Arthur Jensen, Frank Kemp Salter, etc. suggest are reasonable and are backed up by much data. Muso will have us known that this data is "select". Indeed, however, many of the things I talk about are some of the most aggressively researched aspects of the social sciences.

Alex Beaujean summarises:

Quote:


And he is right. There is too much data supporting the hereditarian hypothesis to simply write it off. Study in group interaction between human beings is less documented but still has been subject to many fascinating investigations. HBD/Biopolitik is flourishing. Contrary to your

to be cont

<<The shoe shiners are not necessarily unskilled workers - many Iraqi refugees that came to to Australia when Saddam was in power were upper-middle class professionals. A large number were academics.>>
........................................................

I worked with one such person at one of the major hospitals in Sydney, a brilliant scientist. He fled because Saddam wanted him to do work that was against his ethical  standards. If he refused he would have most likely been killed. He was an asset for Australia.

The people that call them shoe shiners and lower class are uneducated and ill informed. It really is about race, but they are too gutless to admit it.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 18^th, 2010 at 11:50am:




pansi to my knowledge the only boat people I have encountered live across the road.. they are Vietnamese they arrived by boat in the early 80s..a more charming family I couldnt wish for as neighbours but even they are unhappy with the way people are arriving now, their English is pretty good so I dont think I make a mistake..they do not believe the boat people need to come here this way anymore.my neighbours didnt pay to get on the boat..they think a lot of fakes are using this way of getting into the country and they dont like it either. it gives the genuine refugee a bad name and makes it all the harder for them

JC Denton wrote on Nov 18^th, 2010 at 11:46am:


I don't dismiss your proposals as un-scientific - most "science" is questionable - I dismiss them as irrelevant.

Race is constructed by geography, diet and factors such as war. Mongolians moved to the Americas and become Injuns. Slavs moved to Britain and became Celts. Indians moved to Europe and became gypsies. Moses moved some guy called Abraham's descendants to the desert for 40 years to become God's chosen people.

I don't know what the cut-off line is - at what point you describe a tribe as God's chosen people. The Nazis were pretty good at it: Germans were higher than the French, who were decadent, who were higher than the Italians, who were lazy, who were higer than the Slavs, who were almost subhuman (but not quite), and the Jews were the lowest of the low. Why? Who knows?

It was all very "scientific" though.

The whole process is about alienation. You're seeking to exclude most of the world's people from entering Australia based on their race. If this isn't exclusive or elitist, what is?

You're right - I guess you can call me divisive for distancing myself from racism. At one point the Germans seemed to march in step too. I don't know if I would have alienated myself from all that - I'm not a big fan of torture, you know. My fingernails are very sensitive.

There are mean and nice people in every race. If you're going to use a system for classifying people, use something based on their niceness - not something they have no control over.

I suppose we could always start by sending the descendants of our original pommy criminal migrants back to the rotting prison barges anchored in the Thames.
Next we could get stuck into the decedents of the Polish and German refugees who came to our shores in the late 1800's
Then the post world war 1 and 2 refugees from all over Europe and Asia.
Of course once we are at the end of that list we can start deporting the current generation of migrants and refugees.
That should leave a country inhabited purely by a few thousand pure blood Aboriginals,who just happen to be the only product of non migrants or refugees in this country
Im sure it would be easy to arrange