The Venus Project-Bullshit?

[kenandkids]

So you're not an apologist, you're an out and out racist. And you're PROUD of it, and think your racism makes you smarter and better than other people... again, all part of the childish narcissism of your entire worldview.

When a person's worldview is essentially "take what you want and everyone else be damned" the person needs some reason to latch on to in order to feel justified. What's the bet that he places african blacks as the least intelligent due to "less evolution" or some other bullshit? Of course, his race is the best and deserves to have control of society and wealth...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

When a person's worldview is essentially "take what you want and everyone else be damned" the person needs some reason to latch on to in order to feel justified. What's the bet that he places african blacks as the least intelligent due to "less evolution" or some other bullshit? Of course, his race is the best and deserves to have control of society and wealth...

Well, now that he has the permission of someone that believes some races are smarter than others...

Here's a good time to use the IGNORE function. I tend to lose my cool when the Klan shows up, and so do you. Let's not get banned over this guy's horseshit racism.

There's something here we CAN discuss, in the context of the Venus Project. That's the fact that Utopian movements tend to attract people who cling to wrong ideas that confirm their biases and preconceived notions. Then they basically gather around the notion that if only everyone agreed with them and their ideas, some magical transformation of reality will take place and everything will work out for the best.

The fundamentalists do it all the time: "Oh woe is us, our society has not embraced the One True God, and that's why the economy sucks and the droughts happen. If only everyone agreed with us, God would place his invisible hand upon us and deliver us to heaven on earth." The Communists did it, the free market cultists do it, every religious and pseudo-religious group is based around the idea of just getting everyone on board with bad and wrong ideas for the sake of in-group unity. And I think that they are required to be wrong ideas in order to make the cult work. If the ideas were correct, there'd be no criticism. Without criticism, there's no persecution complex or in/out group difference to prey on.

Venus Project? More of the same. What do they want people to do the make Utopia happen? Send money and spread the word, hallelujah and amen brothers and sisters! :lol:

 

[impiku]

Go ahead and ignore me butthurt liberals with no arguments whatsoever. But understand that reality will not change just because it hurts a few liberals' feelings. I don't consider any race "inherently superior", that is just retarded. Reality is hard to swallow, but denying it will do nothing and I actually want to be "wrong" here, but when I look at studies and theories, it seems like racial egalitarianism is a jackass position.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I don't suppose it would be worthwhile here to point out that multiple studies conducted on the matter have concluded that, beyond superficial features, in every case there is always more difference within a race then between any two; and that for this reason trying to categorize humanity into separate subspecies (racism) is a scientifically absurd position?

No? Didn't think so....

 

[Case]

..Also, Case, you can launch another thread for this matter if you want.

Well, now that he has the permission of someone that believes some races are smarter than others...

Hahahaha. Don't worry, I grant almost everyone a freebie, my elaborate answer was his. I already made my point and if he's just gonna troll now, so be it.

nash, if you're still with us, exactly what parts of the VP do you want an assessment of? If it's within the realm of psychology, I could take a look at it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't suppose it would be worthwhile here to point out that multiple studies conducted on the matter have concluded that, beyond superficial features, in every case there is always more difference within a race then between any two; and that for this reason trying to categorize humanity into separate subspecies (racism) is a scientifically absurd position?

No? Didn't think so....

Well... those of us who have been in these conversations know that simple, obvious fact and it is readily available for anyone interested in reality rather than confirming their bias. So it isn't worthwhile, in the sense that the people who will accept it already have, and the ones who won't can't be convinced anyway.

 

[impiku]

I don't suppose it would be worthwhile here to point out that multiple studies conducted on the matter have concluded that, beyond superficial features, in every case there is always more difference within a race then between any two; and that for this reason trying to categorize humanity into separate subspecies (racism) is a scientifically absurd position?

No? Didn't think so....

Is that why DNA tests can determine race and racial ancestry with accuracy? Look up: "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies." -- American Journal of Human Genetics. Wouldn't your critique also apply to other subspecies? Also, merely pointing out that more difference within a group exists then between any two does not render biological categorization on this matter irrelevant. The existence of race can also be examined via susceptibility to certain diseases and some treatments more being more effective/ineffective on a certain race. Look up: "Lesser Response to Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Black as Compared with White Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction." -- New England Journal of Medicine. This is just one example.

..and go ahead and ridicule my stance folks. This is what I would expect from a fundie when I enumerate some facts about evolution to debunk his creationist nonsense.

I'm not particularly interested in following this line of discussion either

Sure. I guess that is why you keep on coming back to drop some creationist-like nonsense.

===

Something interesting to note:
The most recent survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 scientists how many of them were race-deniers, the result was: biologists 16%
According to a 1991 Gallup poll of Americans(Robinson 1995, Witham 1997), found that about 5% of scientists denied evolution.
I guess there are extremists in every field.

 

[kenandkids]

Here's a good time to use the IGNORE function. I tend to lose my cool when the Klan shows up, and so do you. Let's not get banned over this guy's horseshit racism.

Good advice and I'll take it. Anyone who thinks that because some racial groups have defined genetic characteristics then there MUST be an intelligence factor for "some other races" isn't worth the effort.

I don't suppose it would be worthwhile here to point out that multiple studies conducted on the matter have concluded that, beyond superficial features, in every case there is always more difference within a race then between any two; and that for this reason trying to categorize humanity into separate subspecies (racism) is a scientifically absurd position?

No? Didn't think so....

Racism 101: Because there are some defining genetic characteristics to a population means that any concept which a racist wants to believe is true genetically.

Note the confusion in the posts; because some populations have genetic markers or oddities that allow them to be identified by DNA, they are thus an entirely different race.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I don't suppose it would be worthwhile here to point out that multiple studies conducted on the matter have concluded that, beyond superficial features, in every case there is always more difference within a race then between any two; and that for this reason trying to categorize humanity into separate subspecies (racism) is a scientifically absurd position?

No? Didn't think so....

Is that why DNA tests can determine race and racial ancestry with accuracy? Look up: "Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies." -- American Journal of Human Genetics. Wouldn't your critique also apply to other subspecies? Also, merely pointing out that more difference within a group exists then between any two does not render biological categorization on this matter irrelevant. The existence of race can also be examined via susceptibility to certain diseases and some treatments more being more effective/ineffective on a certain race. Look up: "Lesser Response to Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor Therapy in Black as Compared with White Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction." -- New England Journal of Medicine. This is just one example.

..and go ahead and ridicule my stance folks. This is what I would expect from a fundie when I enumerate some facts about evolution to debunk his creationist nonsense.

I was going to reply to this, but kenandkids basically did it for me:

Note the confusion in the posts; because some populations have genetic markers or oddities that allow them to be identified by DNA, they are thus an entirely different race.

Now I would have ended with the word 'subspecies' because 'race' can be easily confused in it's proper scientific and colloquial meanings, but the point is essentially the same. No credible biologist I know of categorizes humans as belonging to different subspecies, and even the use of the term 'race' on a taxonomic level has been more-or-less discontinued because it becomes incredibly difficult to arrive at an objective criterion for determining race. Low genetic diversity and frequent interbreeding between populations mean that there are no races, or at least none that are sufficiently distinct from their neighbors to separate them. For instance Magyars (Hungarians), Turks, and Turkmen... White European, or Central Asian? I know that the Japanese are East Asian, and that Thais are Southeast Asian, but what about people who live in Southern China? Are you "White" (I'm going to go out on a limb here), or "Black?" While it is almost certain if you're an American that you have some African DNA in your recent heritage, how high would that percentage have to be in order to make you "Black?" What if it was, say, above 50%, but you looked "White" in spite of it? And yes, this happens. You see where the problem is?

I guess the only thing left to do is to point out that, for instance, just because I have a genetic anomaly in my mtDNA which has been tracked to the Sami population of Northern Scandinavia, this does not make me an intuitive reindeer herder. This is because you have to actually demonstrate that these genetic differences do something, beyond simply existing. Your medical examples (I could list many more, by the way) are fun, but don't imply anything beyond themselves.

Also, I have never ridiculed you or your stance. I have been nothing but polite to your person. You on the other hand have accused me of dogmatism, which I do not appreciate. Show me a gene, or series of genes, that relate to intelligence and have a significant variance in occurrence along ethnic lines (with the caveat that there are no mitigating factors, like the presence of another gene which, though different, performs the same function), and I will change my mind. Show me how it works, and that it works, and I will flip on a fucking dime... I'll be as embarrassed as hell, but once I've recovered from the shock I will run through the streets yelling at the top of my lungs that (to pick one at random) Uzbeks are scientifically proven to be more intelligent than us common folk, and we should turn everything over to their superior wisdom, and insist that all our wives get in vitro fertilized by their sperm so as to produce a yet greater human race.

But, as far as I know, no such evidence exists.

 

[impiku]

Examining DNA is crucial when it comes to investingating the genetic relations between biological groups. The taxonomic distinction is no more obscure than the categorical line that distinguishes geological formations like hills and mountains or ponds or lakes and most of the objections presented(that there are more biological differences within the group than between groups, the supposedly obscure taxonomic distinction) can easily be reduced to absurdity by comparing it with how other animals are categorized. I'm unsure how you are going to reconcile this.

The medical example I provided illustrates the reality of the existence of races. Another example like this would be bone analysis used by forensic anthropologists(those who do skeletal identification for law enforcement), that can easily identify races with an extreme level of accuracy. You are being deliberately myopic if you think these examples mean nothing.

I'm unsure of an "intelligence gene" that has a significant variance in occurence along ethinic lines but I know of a gene that exacerbates impulsivity that aptly corresponds to crime rate; MAOA-L gene. Black males are twice as more like to possess this gene compared to white males, and they are also 13.5 times more likely to have a rare version that is associated with "extreme violence" and aggression and out of all the races, blacks have the highest crime rate.

I never accused you of dogmatism, but I will apologize if my posts offended you anyway. It seems like you are the only one capable of maintaining a rational discourse, and I respect you for that. Too many atheists are afraid of subjecting their core beliefs like racial egalitarianism which is an absurd position intuitively and empirically given the understanding of evolution just like creationists are afraid of subjecting their core religious beliefs under scientific scrutinization. These sort of atheists usually emphasize intellectual honesty and complain that creationists are cowards for not subjecting their beliefs to science, they are hypocrites. I doubt most of the criticisms I received originated from genuine intellectual curiosity(excluding your post of course) which is unfortunate coming from atheists that are so passionate about pursing truth.

Depict me as a racist all you want, but understand that what I am concerned with is truth, not political correctness.

 

[australopithecus]

Instead of continuing this ridiculous argument about intelligence and race how about someone cites some evidence? Just saying. Because at this is both boring and stupid.

 

[impiku]

No one is continuing this discussion and we were discussing the reality of race and I cited some evidence, but this was a while ago and I have no particular interest in further discussion on this matter. You will find more content regarding race and IQ controversy in wiki. There are some arguments from both sides(nature vs nurture). If you find this boring or stupid you don't have to follow this line of discussion.

 

[Prolescum]

Debate Part 1: Introductory Arguments on Genetics, Race, and Intelligence



Well worth watching the whole thing if you're interested in impiku's ridiculous stance, Australopithecus.

 

[impiku]

Well, just because the person taking the hereditarian position didn't execute his arguments properly doesn't mean the hereditarian position is ridiculous.

 

[Prolescum]

Well, just because the person taking the hereditarian position didn't execute his arguments properly doesn't mean the hereditarian position is ridiculous.

I wasn't talking to you.

. . . I have no particular interest in further discussion on this matter.

 

[impiku]

Well, just because the person taking the hereditarian position didn't execute his arguments properly doesn't mean the hereditarian position is ridiculous.

I wasn't talking to you.

Well, I thought I should add since you were talking about my stance and both the autistic kid in the debate and I share the same stance on this issue.

 

[Prolescum]

Well, I thought I should add since you were talking about my stance

So? You said you no longer had a particular interest in the discussion. It's not you under the microscope, but a view that you happen to hold.

and both the autistic kid in the debate and I share the same stance on this issue.

How do you know he's autistic and what does him having that condition matter to this debate?

He prepared his arguments (incidentally, the very same as your own) for a debate and lost spectacularly. You failed to convince anyone in a conversation and gave up as soon as someone with more nous than kenandkids showed up.

I recall you said that you're interested only in truth... :lol:

 

[impiku]

How do you know he's autistic and what does him having that condition matter to this debate?

I occasionally follow his videos. Autistic kids usually cannot debate, he mentioned it in his past video.

You failed to convince anyone in a conversation and gave up as soon as someone with more nous than kenandkids showed up.

I didn't "give up", I was not the one who failed to respond, Barney just didn't respond to my claims and I thought it was over. So I decided I might as well put a full stop on it after australopithecus showed up and said something about "continuing" when the debate didn't continue for some time.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

You failed to convince anyone in a conversation and gave up as soon as someone with more nous than kenandkids showed up.

I didn't "give up", I was not the one who failed to respond, Barney just didn't respond to my claims and I thought it was over. So I decided I might as well put a full stop on it after australopithecus showed up and said something about "continuing" when the debate didn't continue for some time.

Have you ever heard the expression, "two ships passing in the night?"

Your posts seem to give mine a wide berth.

 

[Prolescum]

How do you know he's autistic and what does him having that condition matter to this debate?

I occasionally follow his videos. Autistic kids usually cannot debate, he mentioned it in his past video.

He mentioned that he's autistic, that he usually cannot debate, that he's autistic and usually cannot debate or that autistic kids usually cannot debate?
The answer to this question will inform the nature and volume of my laughter.

You failed to convince anyone in a conversation and gave up as soon as someone with more nous than kenandkids showed up.

I didn't "give up", I was not the one who failed to respond, Barney just didn't respond to my claims and I thought it was over. So I decided I might as well put a full stop on it after australopithecus showed up and said something about "continuing" when the debate didn't continue for some time.

Ah, the impatience of youth. I recall those ironically titled halcyon days.

Let me get this right... someone hadn't the time to yet respond and you thought it was over. Someone else wants to revisit or continue the conversation, and you "put a full stop on it"; is that correct?