Big Donger wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:



Yep.  So what are we arguing about?

Honky, we’re discussing the End of Academic Freedom.

You seem to want academics to prove your views, and when they come up with evidence to the contrary, you claim they’re politically motivated.

Genes aren’t politically motivated, and I can’t really see how scientists can pretend they do things that they don’t. The evidence is that they don’t follow the cultural grouping of race. What do we do with this information?

So far, you’ve ignored it, argued against it, said it doesn’t exist, and when the evidence is clear, saif that you don’t need complicated scientific doublethink to tell you the opposite of what you already know - from looking at pictures of dogs.

Now you can call me old fashioned, but I do think this goes against the general tone and spirit of scientific reasoning, don’t you?

You may recall those puzzle pictures Descartes used to show the illusiory nature of seeing. You know, is it a vase or two faces? A hill with a tree or a woman in a hat? Sometimes our eyes deceive us, and it was this this insight that brought on the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, and scientific movements like empiricism. Truth must be explored using evidence from all the senses. Facts are not self evident.

Academics should have the freedom, to quote one of your favourite writers, to say that one plus one equals two. If we think that one plus one equals three, and a research team is given a trillion dollars and goes away for 15 years or so and proves that, no, one plus one equals two, what should we do about it?

If the kids used your example, they’d all ignore it and keep counting three. Three marbles, three lolly teeth, three deals of pot. When we say that, no, one plus one equals two now, they’d all go away and google pictures of three, post Wikipedia articles on maths (but not three), and moan and complain about political correctness. It MUST equal three. It’s ALWAYS equalled three. I KNOW it equals three.

But it doesn’t. Should human knowledge be a welfare state to safely prop up the views of those who refuse to change their minds? Or should it impartially state its facts and let the knuckleheads battle it out?

You seem to want the former (when it suits you). I’d passionately argue for the latter whether it suits me or not. I’ve changed my mind about a lot of things in this life. I don’t believe being rigid in your beliefs represents any sense of strength or personal integrity at all. Personally, I see this as inflexibility and arrogance.

If biologists isolate genes that cause race, no problem. I’m not against it, and I really don’t see why we should have such strongly held views either way on this subject. It’s not an issue like global warming or food or energy security where the knowledge has very severe and long-term consequences.

Same for you. I don’t understand why the issue of race is so crucial for you. Where you live and work is predominantly white - the tinted races are not invading and clogging up Perth or Rotto. And I don’t understand why it’s so important to feel racially superior to a group of people you rarely see  - much of your posted racist literature has been about African Amerikans.

Why bother?

I really don’t know, but academic freedom is about the freedom to state some form of truth, not say whatever superstition or prejudice you have.  You can do this ad nauseum, of course, but you can’t do it from a scientific perspective. On this topic, with the evidence we have, you can only do it from a racist perspective.

That, I think, is what we disagree on. And if you find an article that proves a genetic basis for race, I’m all ears.

So far, Imperium has given it a go. You?

Mnemonic wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 4:34pm:


No. Someone might want to correct me here, but I think DNA can prove a strong likelihood that your parents are your parents. It’s better at proving that they aren’t your parents.

But it can’t prove your race - there is no discovered sequence or code for race. At all.

i looked at that article

i read down a few paragraphs and it had a lot of red herrings (99.9% the same!!!) (more variation within than between), etc

whats been disproven exactly?

in all fairness species is highly edgy/fuzzy as a concept as well. theres a big dispute about just what a species actually is, but you don't get a whole plethora of cretins coming out of the woodwork to vociferously proclaim that there are no distinct types within the biological kingdom because of niggling theoretical/conceptual disputes regarding the matter of exact classification. taxonomists classifying some species of butterfly into two distinct subspecies because one has some black spots and the other has some purple spots (but are identical otherwise) doesn't appear to inspire the incense and rage of the race denialists.

races can be distinguished using genetic information quite easily, you just need enough genetic information to do it.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:03pm:


You DON’T think that’s important?

I thought you were a eugenicist.

Nothing has been disproven - just not discovered.

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:16pm:


I think that's a big part of where the denialists are going wrong - they seem to classify everyone in a few, very broad categories (intelligence, size, strength, speed...and that's about it) and when no pattern is found, say "no such fing as race".  Patterns would be far easier to distinguish if they'd use a far greater number of far narrower categories. 

... wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:


That’s strange. I could have sworn I remember you saying how we should disregard all this scientific mumbo jumbo and just keep it simple - with a picture of a poodle and a bull terrier.

I’m glad you’ve changed your mind, Honky. It shows you’ve been listening.