Big Blue Wave's Comments
Suzanne,
The flakiness of the complainer won't really matter if the complaint is solid. And I look at the fact that this Whatcott guy wasn't making off the cuff remarks, but linking to crafted online fliers that had, in their paper form, already got him in trouble, and I think that it may well be.
I think it is a terrible idea to "rally the troops" to this cause. Whatcott is a creep and should be booted as far away as possible. Are you or Connie proud of the stuff he has written at FD? Because he is who you will be defending if this one goes to the wall.
You're not going to change the law over this; that much is absolutely certain. And, given that, is this a fight you want to fight?
Bill Whatcott has never written or displayed anything that is untrue or offensive except to narrow-minded, big(in their own mind) city socialists.
You go Bill!
There's a lot about Bill Whatcott's approach and ideology that I disagree with.
But I do not think he should be in any way sanctioned by the state. He did not advocate violence. He simply criticized a religion. People criticize my religion all the time and say all our priests are pedophiles and that our Church is violent and evil. I don't think they should go to jail.
The point is: if Bill isn't allowed to say what he wants, where does it end?
Suzanne,
It probably ends at Bill. I don't find the slope that slippery. You will still have, for example, Michael Coren. Look at Whatcott's pamphlets. If Connie wants to fight this, that is what the fight will be about.
And remember, whatever you think about the legislation, he's already been found in violation of it. D'you think Connie and FD will be able to stoke a revolution and change the law? If not, then you might as well hit yourself over the head with a brick. It will do as much good.
"It probably ends at Bill."
Based on what? You can't criticize anything in Canada any more.
"You will still have, for example, Michael Coren"
Who has a newspaper company behind him.
The nature of the complaint is ridiculous. The idea that you can't criticize Islam and call it a violent religion is stupid.
"And remember, whatever you think about the legislation, he's already been found in violation of it."
On other issues. And you're okay with that?
"D'you think Connie and FD will be able to stoke a revolution and change the law?"
They will bring attention to the injustice of the Human Rights Tribunal System. We want them gone. They are not real courts.
If this goes through then we should be able to file a complaint against against Rabble/Babble. I recently linked to a post where Michelle the monitor says its just fine to call the Pope a Nazi etc etc etc
I was just at a blog where the guy said that people like me should be thrown in jail for what I write.
I think this will blow over. But if not when we know precisely what is being cited in the charges it may be time for all of us to step up and conduct a bit of civil disobedience- repeat the offending passages on our own blogs ad nauseum if necessary, enlist as much help as we can, and don't let up.
They can't sue all of us.
You thrown in jail? What for? did you say something true?
Just my social conservatism in general.
"A flake?" What is this based upon--that Gentes dared complain about hate speech? That makes her "a flake?"
This is hardly a cause worth fighting for, Suzanne. Free Dominion is a hatesite. Let's let the law take its course.
Speaking of hate, here's another questionable post/comments that may be actionable:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/
...4.html#comments
There are limits to everything. I'll fight for freedom of apeech, but not for the right to promulgate hatred. If you want the latter, organize to change th law. I'd be interested in the shape of that campaign.
I am a social liberal who tends to be more lenient than others about free speech (or the free exchange of ideas) so I'll be posting in support of Free Dominion's rights when I get the chance. I usually disagree with social conservatives and the folks at FD but I disagree with hate-speech laws more. Historically, government agencies have not been the most objective arbiters of what is acceptable political or religious speech.
Dawg, name 5 Jamaican Nobel Prize Winners and I'll take it back. Don't you have a life? Oh and some of the stuff you've said about me on say Dust My Broom could easily be construed of as approving of mysogyny. So just watch your butt.
Dawg, you are tiresome. Face facts, your weapon - political correctness- is being taken away from you. That is what you fear.
If you will fight for speech, but not hate speech, then your principles are bunk. "...I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Remember that? All that corny 101 stuff about the First Amendment existing to protect unpopular speech because popular speech by definition needs no defense?
Oh i forgot, you guys don't care about centuries of history, law and philosophy. You're 'progressives'! You are so much smarter than Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson!
Tell me Dawg. Did you read the entire thread at SmallDeadAnimals? Didn't you find it kind of cool to see all those people debating the meaning of racism, the merits of political correctness, etc.
No of course not. You want conversations like that shut down because unless we all agree with you, we need to be silenced.
If your ideas are so strong they shouldn't need protection from criticism by a panel of unelected bureaucrats.
Sad.
I love making you guys mad. It gives me goosebumps. I LIVE for it. Just keep talking. We all sit around and laugh what losers you are. The more you hate what I say, the more I know I'm right. You can't win.
This is idiotic. If I were Canadian, I would be offended at the thought that I - a gay man - needed protection from hate speech. Please. "Oh no, someone doesn't like me because I'm gay! Said person is saying mean things about me based on my sexuality! How will I cope? Won't some heavenly progressive show up on a white horse and rescue me?"
Screw homophobes--but screw the preening, condescending idiots who think I need their protection from homophobes twice as hard.
Anyway, why don't Catholics in Canada get together and sue the pants off liberals for their hate speech? I'm sure examples must be legion.
I'm still reeling from the charge of misogyny. Wrong commenter, Kathy. Do a fact-check, mkay? Wasn't me.
*****
Gosh, you're back. No, I'm not mad. I'm not even cross. I'm more amused than anything else, but you'll have to take my word for it. Sometimes the reality breaks through the code, or, put a different way, the old code emerges.
"Fire" in a crowded theatre? Libel? Slander? (The latter two being hate-speech about individuals.) How far would you go with this absolutist nonsense about freedom of speech? Child porn? Communication of state secrets?
And here I thought you disapproved of libertarians.
MarcZ: I've read all kinds of stuff against Catholics. I ran a Catholic message board for several years and have read worse about Catholics. The complaint is stupid.
Dawg: Free Dominion is a place where people can have an exchange of ideas. Are hateful things said there? Yes. But hateful things are said on Babble, Bread n Roses, and EnMasse. Don't tell me no one has ever posted "all Catholic priests are pedophiles" on leftist boards. People know that's not true. But there you go. Nobody has launched a HRC complaint about that yet. I've been dumped on at Bread n Roses and they don't have the courtesy (or heck, now that I think about it) the courage to name me by name. They just refer to me by ALL CAPS.
The actual complaint itself is ridiculous. The idea that a flyer by Whatcott denouncing Islam (not Muslims!) is the subject of human rights complaint is ridiculous. People say worse things about Catholicism. But Muslims seem to be the pet minority that need protecting. If people do not like what is said, then start a blog and denounce it.
Dawg:
The question I have is, who decides what constitutes hate speech, and how? Is it hate speech to point out that male homosexual sex puts one at an incredibly increased risk for HIV/AIDS? Is it hate speech to point out that blacks in America, on average, score 15 points lower than whites on IQ tests? For every person who would say these things to sow hatred, there is someone out there who would say these things simply because they are true, and thus, are worthy of discussion. How do you differentiate between the two?
Mark:
Who decides what is hate speech (group libel)? The courts, who also decide what is libel, slander and defamation. The process isn't as arbitrary as you make it sound.
Unprotected heterosexual sex with prostitutes puts one at risk of getting HIV. The HIV epidemic in Africa is largely spreading through heterosexual sex. I'm a little tired of people using the HIV tactic to mask their homophobia.
As for the "15 IQ points lower" meme, the fact is that there is a 7-10 point gap, which is steadily shrinking. Are you aware that on the Army Alpha Intelligence Test administered in the US in 1917, northern Blacks outperformed Southern whites? There is really no excuse in 2007 to perpetuate the "stupid Negroes have lower IQs" meme. It's grossly dishonest or ignorant or both.
See for example:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-...o/L-
15point.htm
and
Epps, E.G. "Race, Intelligence, and Learning: Some Consequences of the Misuse of Test Results." Phylon (1960-), Vol. 34, No. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1973), 153-159.
Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is pretty good as well.
I'm all for good-faith discussions about anything under the sun, but not "debates" that are simply rhetorical cloaks for bigotry.
[Note to Ms. Shaidle: I re-read your accusation--cleverly worded, I must say. You aren't actually accusing me of misogyny, but simply of countenancing it.
For the record, the post over at Dust My Broom was expressing hurt and anger about clearly racist material at your place. It was that that I was responding to, with some surprise on my part, given the formerly impeccable conservative credentials of the poster. I did not, however, refer to the obvious misogyny that unfortunately accompanied it. I should have found a way to do so, on reflection.]
One person's bigotry is another person's truth. That's the problem.
I think people who oppose rights for unborn children are bigots. So when I get into power, should speech fetuses be criminalized?
See it works both ways.
What on earth is a "speech fetus?"
Dawg, Colby Cosh demolished the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing last week in the Post. Try reading it. That's what someone whose brain entertains original thoughts sounds like.
Everyone is a 'racist.' Honest people admit it.
Nice use of a test from 1917. Here is some updated stuff should you care to read it:
http://www.capmag.com/article.as...cle.asp?
ID=1958
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/
unth...unthinkable.htm
I wouldn't be surprised if Northern Blacks outperformed back then. They had WEB Debois and other non-victim heroes to emulate, not to mention exceptional black run schools in Washington DC and elsewhere. see thomas sowell on Dunbar High:
http://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html
Note that 1917 is a long way away from the War on Poverty and busing, which I'm sure you approved of at the time.
I'm also not surprised you like Gould, who was a Marxist. Try reading science books that were written after 1981:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/00152
4.html
One minute you're sending me emails telling me I'm wonderful, the next day I'm a hatemonger. Either make up your mind or get counselling, or a more demanding job. Seriously.
PS: you're "not mad" but you ARE "hurt and angry". ??
I'd say you are seriously confused, getting weirdly obsessed with everything I write and say, and need to get a life. I feel sorry for you, a typical progressive whose mind is filled with old debunked theories and ideas.
Everytime you write a response, you prove me right. Don't you have something better to do? I'm not being sarcastic. You will never change my mind -- you are doing just the opposite. If you really want to help the progressive cause, you'd stop giving me ammunition.
For the record, I have not, in private email or in public, stated that Kathy Shaidle is "wonderful." Ewww. Can I sue over this? : )
I had read the Cosh piece. I really don't know the purpose of it. He's right, of course--sometimes shouting "Fire" is just what you should do, assuming that the theatre doors open outwards. So let's abandon that trope, and come up with a better one, like inciting to riot. It doesn't cast much of an image on the mind, but it's still illegal, last time I checked.
Sowell is OK reading, and the quote from Jensen was telling--if, after that, he was still peddling his "whites are smarter" nonsense, he was clearly guilty of even greater intellectual dishonesty than using Cyril Burt's cooked stats.
I checked out the anti-Gould article, too--it completely contradicts Sowell. So let's hear where you actually stand on this, instead of dancing around it in your usual FY fashion.
I liked the references to big brains in that article, incidentally. Kind of hard to explain this sort of thing. And this isn't particularly new.
But please, spare us the references to VDARE, a US white-supremecist hatesite. If you want to talk science, stick to the primary literature.
I wasn't referring to myself being "hurt and angry," but to the poster. Do you suffer from bouts of reading incomprehension?
And please, do not flatter yourself. I could count my comments on your blogposts this year on the fingers of one hand. I wish you'd abandon this weird projection of yours. As a good example, who began this discussion, on this thread, and made it all about her?
Ouch! And I'll follow my own advice from now on. I should have cited John Lorber's work directly ("Is the brain really necessary?")instead of linking to a bizarre site that tells you how to perform telekinesis. Even Homer nods.
Dawg:
Unprotected heterosexual sex with prostitutes puts one at risk of getting HIV. The HIV epidemic in Africa is largely spreading through heterosexual sex. I'm a little tired of people using the HIV tactic to mask their homophobia.
And I'm a little tired of people using the AIDS epidemic in Africa to mask their ignorance of biology. You are far, far, far more likely to get HIV/AIDS through homosexual sex then you are through heterosexual sex. HIV has taken a hold in parts of sub-Saharan Africa because of a perfect storm of sexual violence, multiple concurrent partners, poor health care (leading to untreated STDs, which predispose one to infection), and lack of male cicumcision. Note that while there are sub-Saharan African countries that have HIV rates on the order of 30%, the overall rate of HIV infection in Sub-Saharan Africa is much, much lower (around 5%). The overall HIV rate for homosxuals in the West is much higher than 5%.
I am gay and I must deal with the reality that my sexuality puts me at a very, very increased risk of getting HIV. Why do straight people like you, presuming you are straight, feel compelled to deny it, when the implications for me are far more unsettling? Is it because you can afford to deny it, whereas I can't?
Mark:
I didn't say that unprotected gay sex is without risk. I simply objected to what I took to be the assertion that HIV is a "gay disease," when (as the African example illustrates) it is clearly not.
What is the rate of HIV infection among the Canadian homosexual population, by the way?
Maybe we should gently steer this thread back to the topic, by the way. What of my comments about the law and hate speech?
Dawg,
As for the "15 IQ points lower" meme, the fact is that there is a 7-10 point gap, which is steadily shrinking. Are you aware that on the Army Alpha Intelligence Test administered in the US in 1917, northern Blacks outperformed Southern whites? There is really no excuse in 2007 to perpetuate the "stupid Negroes have lower IQs" meme. It's grossly dishonest or ignorant or both.
No, Dawg, the gap is 10-15 points and has remained largely (but not entirely) stable over the past one hundred years. It persists across all socioeconomic levels and is found even in cases of interracial adoption (google the Minnesota Scarr meta-analysis of interracially adopted children). Saying this isn't dishonest or ignorant. It is the opposite. Anyone who actually studies, as opposed to cherry-picks, the data will see this.
The only evidence that the gap is shrinking is a recent study by Dickens and Flynn which shows that the gap between white and black children has decreased by about five points between 1970 to 2005. More specifically, the median IQ for black children rose from 84 to 89, while the median IQ for white children stayed at around 100.
You can see a graph juxtaposing the IQ findings for black children and adults here:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/08...lack-iq-
gap.php
So the gap between black and white children narrowed from 16 to 11 points. However, in the same period, there was no narrowing of the gap between white and black adults. Since twin studies strongly suggest that the correlation between genotypic and phenotypic IQ increases with age, and there was no corresponding increase among black adults during the same time, it is very possible even this five point gain among black children is environmental, and will erode as they grow older. In fact, there is some evidence already this is the case. An independent review of Jensen's and Wilken's data mapped the average IQs for black children by year of birth. What they found is that for very young children, there was an increase of five points. For adults, there was no increase. And for young adults, there was an initial increase followed by a regression to the standard black mean of 85.
Graph available here:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/0611...r/
061126_iq.htm
Furthermore, the Wilkens and Flynn study relied on a number of IQ standardization samples, which typically consist of a few hundred children who happen to show up at school on a particular day. Meanwhile, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which tested over 6,000 blacks and low-income whites repeatedly over the course of twenty years, found no narrowing of the black-white IQ gap between the mid 70's and mid 90's, when the survey concluded. The study, which includes comments on Wilken's and Jensen's findings, is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...-AACZEAZDAY-
YEU
Dawg:
I didn't say that unprotected gay sex is without risk. I simply objected to what I took to be the assertion that HIV is a "gay disease," when (as the African example illustrates) it is clearly not.
What is the rate of HIV infection among the Canadian homosexual population, by the way?
Maybe we should gently steer this thread back to the topic, by the way. What of my comments about the law and hate speech?
You'll forgive me if I gently insist that we continue in this vein; my curiosity is getting the better of me. What did I say that you took to mean that HIV is a "gay disease" - a phrase which I never used? All I said was, and I quote:
Is it hate speech to point out that male homosexual sex puts one at an incredibly increased risk for HIV/AIDS?
How does pointing out the scientific fact that homosexual sex between men puts one at increased risk of HIV infection make HIV a "gay disease?" I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I said nothing to indicate that straight people can't or don't get AIDS. I just asked whether mentioning the increased level of risk associated with one particular behavior, relative to the risk carried by the statistical norm (heterosexual sex), qualifies as hate speech. Your response insinuating that I, a gay man, was motivated by homophobia was completely off the wall, but strangely typical.
And that's what bugs me about political correctness. It has no compunction about supressing knowledge or smearing anyone with the temerity to bring up some inconvenient truth (forgive me, Mr Gore!) as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc... basically, a terrible person with whom no one should associate.
In other words... shun the unbeliever!
Personally, I'm glad that I am aware of the relative risks of HIV infection that certain homosexual acts carry. That knowledge has allowed me to avoid the disease. If the ultra-p.c. had their way, I might not even know the risks because frank discussion of the elevated dangers of gay sex relative to heterosexual sex could be outlawed as hate speech against gays. Thank God it's not.
"What on earth is a "speech fetus?""
Speech against fetuses.
Mark:
You'll have to do better than reference Sailer on that hatesite of his. The Bell Curve has been refuted so utterly and so completely that it's really not worthwhile posting the references--especially as we're wildly OT (probably my fault).
I'll concede the test-score difference of one standard deviation. Suffice it to say, however, that the broad assertion of a genetically pre-determined rigid IQ gap between Blacks and whites irrespective of SES is in error. I'll try to make this brief.
First, the Scarr-Weinberg study that you allude to is problematic--the authors themselves did not feel that conclusions about genes, IQ and race could be drawn from it. That didn't stop the racial ideologues from battening on it, however.
Richard Nisbett references a number of studies in his article "Race, IQ and Scientism," and provides some details on each. Then there's The Black-White Test Score Gap
C. Jencks and M. Phillips, eds.(199
. And R. Fryer and S. Levitt, Understanding the Black-White Test Score Gap In The First Two Years of School" The Review of Economics and Statistics V.86 (May 2004)447-464. I could post a lot more sources, but I suspect I'm already trying Suzanne's patience.
Crap, my post on the black white IQ gap was cut off midway through.
As I was saying...
The study, which includes comments on Wilken's and Jensen's findings, is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
sci...bd7a86941336c54
Another study on the black white IQ gap from the journal INtelligence is available here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
sci...31b8954589b032b
From the abstract:
The black-white difference in test scores for the three standardizations of the Woodcock-Johnson battery of cognitive tests is analyzed in terms of birth cohorts covering the years from 1920 through 1991. Among persons tested at ages 6-65, a narrowing of the difference occurred in overall IQ and in the two most highly g-loaded clusters in the Woodcock-Johnson, Gc and Gf. After controlling for standardization and interaction effects, the magnitude of these reductions is on the order of half a standard deviation from the high point among those born in the 1920s to the low point among those born in the last half of the 1960s and early 1970s. These reductions do not appear for IQ or Gc if the results are restricted to persons born from the mid-1940s onward. The results consistently point to a B-W difference that has increased slightly on all three measures for persons born after the 1960s. The evidence for a high B-W IQ difference among those born in the early part of the 20th century and a subsequent reduction is at odds with other evidence that the B-W IQ difference has remained unchanged. The end to the narrowing of the B-W IQ difference for persons born after the 1960s is consistent with almost all other data that have been analyzed by birth cohort.
In other words, the narrowing of the black white IQ gap - according to this analysis - ended with blacks born in the early 1970's. It's current stabilization at one standard deviation is equivalent to a gap of around 10 points. You can see a graph of the results here:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/03...-on-
changes.php
As for the intelligence test you cite, that was one test showing one cohort of blacks outscoring one cohort of whites out of hundreds of tests showing a 10-15 point gap, on average, in favor of whites. My question to you is, "Why do you cherry pick the one study that tells you what you want to hear, and ignore the - again - literally hundreds of studies that tell you otherwise?"
In Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn examines
Oh, for Christ's sake Dawg. You call Steve Sailer a racist because he believes in the possible genetic origin of the black-white IQ gap, then you say I can't quote any evidence he presents on the possible genetic origin of the black-white IQ gap because Mr. Sailer is a racist.
What real evidence do you have that Mr. Sailer is racist?
Mark:
(On HIV risk) Obviously I misread your intentions. Given the socially conservative nature of the site on which we find ourselves, I made an assumption, for which I apologize.
There are, of course, sexual practices that increase the risk of HIV infection--anal intercourse, to be blunt. But safe sex can be practised by anyone, gay or straight. And my African example indicates that factors other than homosexuality can create a literal AIDS pandemic. I would still like to know what conclusions you draw from the fact that anal intercourse spreads HIV. Does it make the practice risky? Of course. But does that mean that one shouldn't engage in it using safe-sex practices? Does it mean that homosexuality is wrong?
There is nothing wrong with such discussions, by the way. I haven't heard of anyone being hunted down by the dread PC police for stating the obvious about HIV transmission. When such facts are selectively used to bolster a clearly "moral" case, though, it's fair to call people on it.
Crap, my posts keep getting cut off.
I'll make this brief and it's the last thing I will say on the issue.
Literally hundreds of studies have been conducted in places as diverse as Britain, America and Brazil, on race and intelligence. With the rarest (and incomplete) exceptions, they all show a black white IQ gap of 10-15 points, even when controlling for socio-economic status. (Pay special attention to that last part.) Sooner or later, you will have to face that.
Mark:
Your post still got truncated. That's a problem with Haloscan. It forces one to be concise. : )
Of course Sailer is a racist. Anyone venturing over to VDARE and reading his stuff is aware of that. I have. He believes in the genetic racial superiority of whites over blacks and hispanics. He's not, strictly speaking a white supremacist--more of a white separatist. But to deny that he's a racist is to re-write the definition of racism out of existence.
Good grief, Richard Lynn? The fellow who sits on the Pioneer Fund board? That Richard Lynn?
Wow.
Incidentally, on a side-note, I hope you've enjoyed the odd nature of our conversation. Something positively Monty Pythonesque about it.
Dawg:
Of course, I accept your apology for making the assumption you made. But the fact that you made such an assumption illustrates a point I'd like to make. Namely, that people who discuss certain inconvenient truths or possible truths are - unless they produce compelling evidence otherwise - racist, sexist, homophobic, etc...
For an example, let's return (briefly, because I'm sock of the subject and I'm sure everyone else is too) to the black-white IQ gap. I believe it is largely genetic in origin (let's agree to disagree here). You probably are right now making the assumption that I don't like black people, just as you made the assumption that I didn't like gays or homosexuality based on my previous comment about HIV/AIDS.
Would it change your mind if you knew that my last job, which I held for three years, involved providing HIV/AIDS services to inner-city blacks in Baltimore, that I lived (platonicallY) with a black woman and nearly adopted her fatherless child (she ended up finding a steady boyfriend, so it seemed like it was no longer my place) while there? My point in telling you this is to show that if you knew me, you would know that I do not hate blacks. I believe what I believe, in spite of what I would like to believe, because of what I feel is the best interpretation of the available data, not because of prejudice. And if I know that I am not motivated by racism, it certainly seems possible that others who believe the same thing are not. Yet a great many people naturally assume that anyone who believes or mentions certain things are bigots. I don't think that's justified.
I'll answer your questions, which I have avoided doing, in my next post cause I don't want them to get cut off.
Dawg,
I read Sailer religiously. He does not believe in the genetic superiority of whites over blacks and hispanics, nor is he a white seperatist. In fact, he has written extensively on the possible and likely benefits of inter-racial couplings (hybrid vigor). So how can you interpret him to be a seperatist?
He has also speculated on the possible genetic reasons behind the dominance of African-Americans in sports and popular music, which certainly doesn't sound like he believes in the genetic superiority of whites in that area.
Sailer believes in human biodiversity--namely, that as the species spread out across the globe, we differentiated. Which we quite obviously did. DNA tests will tell you that populations cluster consistently along traditional racial boundaries.
You want to believe that we differentiated without there being any effect on the distribution of different talents and abilities among the various groups--which strikes me as highly implausible.
As for Richard Lynn, so what if he sits on the Pioneer Fund. Does that invalidate his research - or his compliation of the research carried out by others?
This is such circular logic you engage in. [Insert person or group] believes that there are intractable differences between the races. Therefore, [insert person or group] is racist. Therefore, any evidence said person or group presents on the intractable differences between the races can be rejected out of hand, because they are motivated by their racism.
I don't believe that science bears you out. There are hundreds of articles I could cite that reduce Herrnstein and Murray to rubble. But--at least in this forum--we've done the thing to death. Let me just note that The Bell Curves defenders--a small but hardy breed--seem to hang out in the scientific equivalent of dark alleys. The Pioneer Fund. Wow.
Race is a construct. It has no scientific basis. And, yes, it's quite possible (although uncommon) for people to believe in the inherent inferiority of others with darker skin-colour without being hateful about it. But, hate or no hate, it's still racism.
Let's try not to use Christ's name in vain. This is a Catholic blog. I have a thing about blasphemy.
Ok, now to actually answer your questions:
There are, of course, sexual practices that increase the risk of HIV infection--anal intercourse, to be blunt. But safe sex can be practised by anyone, gay or straight. And my African example indicates that factors other than homosexuality can create a literal AIDS pandemic.
I never suggested otherwise.
I would still like to know what conclusions you draw from the fact that anal intercourse spreads HIV. Does it make the practice risky? Of course. But does that mean that one shouldn't engage in it using safe-sex practices? Does it mean that homosexuality is wrong?
The only "conclusion" I draw is that I absolutely will not have sex without a condom, and that I will not have receptive anal sex period (because condoms break). That is my personal decision. I do not believe that the high rates of HIV transmission have anything to say on the morality of the act.
There is nothing wrong with such discussions, by the way. I haven't heard of anyone being hunted down by the dread PC police for stating the obvious about HIV transmission. When such facts are selectively used to bolster a clearly "moral" case, though, it's fair to call people on it.
I am not aware of anyone being hunted down by the P.C. police for comments on HIV transmission. Two things, though. One, as someone who wrote grant proposals and press releases for an HIV/AIDS service organization, I can tell you my job depended on writing certain things to potential grantors and the public which I knew to be untrue about the HIV epidemic. Two, Larry Summers was run out of Harvard for mentioning the possibility - the possibility! - that the absence of women among top mathematicians was due to biological differences between the sexes. He mentioned this possibility as one out of several (I believe four) including the standard, often trotted out theories that it was due to discrimination against women or women's greater investment in childcare. He still lost his job. So, generaly speaking, deviating from the P.C. line can have graver consequences than you might think.
DNA tests will tell you that populations cluster consistently along traditional racial boundaries.
Well, no, if I read the above sentence correctly--I assume that you mean that characteristics such as intelligence follow "racial" lines. These characteristics follow clines, not "race." (See C.L. Brace, S. Molnar and many others).
It is not relying on "circular logic" to point out that some individuals and foundations have been utterly discredited, incidentally.
Well, my personal reductio is the infamous "Water Buffalo" case. I'm not an absolutist on speech matters, as I mentioned near the top of this thread. Stupid things get said, and sometimes those things are unlawful.
"Political correctness" is supposed to be about shutting down debate, but as a label the term itself is often wielded by those who want to shut down debate, which I find a bit ironic. Speaking up for rights, for minorities, for hate-crime legislation will attract that label and put you in a box.
Personally I am not a language purist. But it's not all or nothing. I think a line should be drawn somewhere, which is what hate-speech legislation is about. That some silly things happen at the margins doesn't mean that the whole notion should be tossed out.
Race is a construct. It has no scientific basis.
I'm sorry, Dawg, but you don't know what you are talking about. Human beings cluster, genetically, into five large groups which correspond almost exactly with traditional notions of race. They are: Caucasian (Europe, west Asia, the Middle East, North Africa), East Asian, Sub-Saharan African, Australasian (Aborigines), and Amerindian. You can test a person's DNA and estimate, with 99.9% certainty, the person's race.
Yes, there is significant admixture in places like Latin America, Central Asia, and Noth Africa. Even so, you can take the DNA of a random Mexican and estimate what percenage Caucasian and what percentage Amerindian he or she is. You can test Arabs and learn that they have, on average, 10% black admixture on their maternal line and 0% on their paternal line. You can test Portuguese and learn they have around 4% black admixture, and that Russians have about 5% East Asian admxiture. You can test Ethiopians and learn they are 30% caucasian on their paternal line. The studies have been done, the estimates have been made. There is no controversy on the issue.
You are not keeping up with the study of human biodiversity. I suggest you work through your visceral hatred of "racism" and brush up a bit. Start by reading GNXP.com. It's run by non-whites, so maybe you won't have your typical "THESE PEOPLE ARE TERRIBLE WHITE SUPREMACISTS!" reaction.
Stupid things get said, and sometimes those things are unlawful.
What compelling reason is there to outlaw any form of speech? What purpose does it serve?
Look, if someone calls me a faggot, a wop, a dego, whatever, what do I care? How does that hurt me any more than being called any other vulgarity? It doesn't. So why should I bring that person to court over it? That's just infantile, and passing legislation permitting me to do as much promotes infanitle behavior.
I don't believe that science bears you out. There are hundreds of articles I could cite that reduce Herrnstein and Murray to rubble. But--at least in this forum--we've done the thing to death. Let me just note that The Bell Curves defenders--a small but hardy breed--seem to hang out in the scientific equivalent of dark alleys. The Pioneer Fund. Wow.
Well, you reveal more of yourself than you probably realize by offering to close the debate this way: smearing those who disagree with you as unsavory types hanging out in the scientific equivalent of dark alleys.
Less on the personal attacks, and more data, please!
Let's try not to use Christ's name in vain. This is a Catholic blog. I have a thing about blasphemy.
You're not the only one!
Circular argument. You look for specific genes and assign them to a "race," and by doing that you seek to prove that "race" is a meaningful scientific category. Read a little Sussman or Cavalli-Sforza, speaking of "keeping up." Alan Templeton's stuff is pretty good as well.
Did I swear on this blog? I apologize if I did, Suzanne, but I don't think I did.
Speaking of apologies, I have been consistently misspelling Marc's name. Ouch. Sorry about that.
How far would you take this free speech thing, then, Marc? As I asked another commenter, would this apply to libel? Slander? Child pornography? The transmission of state secrets? Talking about bombs while in an airport line-up? Lying under oath? Inciting a riot?
As I say--lines need to be drawn somewhere.
Dawg,
Haplotype mapping does not involve looking for certain genes and asigning them to a race. It involves mapping the frequency of alleles and allele combinations along population groups. What they find is, however you cut it, when you map total allele and allele combination frequency, people DO indeed fall into clusters analagous to traditional notions of race. Now you can call it "race." You can call it "continent of origin," as has been proposed, since that's less political. It's the same damn thing: genetic clustering.
You tell me to read Cavalli-Sforza. Have you read Cavalli-Sforza? How do you think he reconstructed his human evolutionary trees - all of which show genetic clustering analagous to race? He even said in an interview on GNXP (which you really SHOULD read) that the differences between human population groups were "certainly not trivial" and that those who proposed as much (i.e. Richard Lewontin) had political motivations. This interview was in 2006.
Here's a phylogenetic tree you might be interested in. It's more recent than Cavalli-Sforza's, but it illustrates my point. (I can't find Cavalli-Sforza's online, unfortunately).
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal.../
ng1438_F4.html
Note the clustering: You have west asians, north africans and europeans in one group; east asians in another group; cenral asians intermediate in between; Amerindians in their own group; sub-Saharan Africans in their own group (with the exception of Ethiopians who are in their own cluster); and Australasians in their own group. This is, again, analagous to traditional notions of race.
Good grief. Here is a pertinent quote from C-S's "Genes, Peoples and Languages":
It is because they are external that these racial differences strike us so forcibly, and we automatically assume that differences of similar magnitude exist below the surface, in the rest of our genetic makeup. This is simply not so: the remainder of our genetic makeup hardly differ at all.
Sailer hates this guy.
For a short if somewhat dated piece, have a look at M. Nei and A. K. Roychoudhury "Gene Differences between Caucasian, Negro, and Japanese Populations" Science V.177 (1972)434-436.
Dawg,
I think Suzanne was referring to me. I used the Lord's name in vain. Sorry, Suzanne.
No worries regarding misspellings of my name. I'm used to it (you should see my last name!).
As for the free speech thing, you said:
How far would you take this free speech thing, then, Marc? As I asked another commenter, would this apply to libel? Slander? Child pornography? The transmission of state secrets? Talking about bombs while in an airport line-up? Lying under oath? Inciting a riot?
Taking one at a time... As I understand libel and slander, you have to prove that the person is stating, as fact, a knowingly false claim about an individual, company, organization, whatever, for the purpose of damaging that individual's professional reputation. I have no problem with this.
I don't feel that hate speech can be covered under libel and slander laws. Saying, "I hate fags," or "You're a filthy fag," is not libel or slander. It damages no one's reputation (except, perhaps, the person who says it) and is not intended to. It's just a prejudiced, hateful statement. Saying something along the lines of "fifty percent of homosexuals try to infect heterosexuals with HIV" is slanderous in a sense, as it is a (most likely knowingly) false statement designed to damage the reputation of a group, but not a professional group, and not their professional reputation. So I don't think it should be covered...
Marc:
I should correct myself--Sailer thinks C-S is deliberately masking his true ideas to stay afloat politically. I hadn't read his "squid-ink" column.
I find this fatuous.
On libel, slander, et al., hate speech is the same thing applied to groups instead of individuals. I have no difficulty with laws preventing it, assuming that the same strict standards apply as they do in libel and slander jurisprudence. Despite a bit of nonsense at the margins, I think this is the case.
I meant "stay afloat academically."
Dawg,
It's a question of magnitude. People used to think that races represented different subspecies. Scientists questioned for a long time whether there were limits on interbreeding between the races (Charles Darwin talked about this a great deal in The Descent of Man and came away with the tentative conclusion that there were not. Today, we know for certain that there are no such limits.) Christians used to speclate whether there were different Adams and Eves for each race.
Now, we know that around 85% of human differentiation is found among groups, and 15% is found between groups - which is certainly less than people would have guessed several hundred years ago. The important question is, how much of that 15% difference is important? Is it all cosmetic (e.g. skin color, hair color, height, weight, body mass, etc...) or do some of those differences code for things like intelligence?
We have no direct evidence that the black white IQ gap is genetic, simply because we don't know what alleles code for intelligence. The indirect evidence that we have, in my opinion, suggests a genetic, as opposed to environmental origin.
I don't like it, but that's how I see it. Feel free to disagree.
On libel, slander, et al., hate speech is the same thing applied to groups instead of individuals. I have no difficulty with laws preventing it, assuming that the same strict standards apply as they do in libel and slander jurisprudence. Despite a bit of nonsense at the margins, I think this is the case.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that libel and slander were limited to knowingly false statements intended to injure a person's career. Is this true? If so, how do you reconcile it with hate speech?
Also, in regard to hate speech as libel/slander, would this just to apply to specific types of hate speech? For example, if I called a man a faggot on the street, I can't see that being libel. If I published something saying that gay people want to infect straight people HIV, and I knew that to be false, I could see that as slander.
So am I correct in thinking that you would be for laws against the latter but not the former?
Dawg,
Rats, it's three thirty and I gotta run. Sorry if I was a jerk at all during this debate. It's a highly emotional issue and I get very defensive on it because of the generalizations people make about those who believe as I do.
I end with one appeal to you and anyone reading this. Please, please, please do yourself the favor of reading this post by Jason Malloy over at GNXP. It is an excellent introduction/overview of the degrees of racial genetic differences, written by people who are clearly not racist a-holes (excuse me Suzanne).
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives...ves/
004046.html
Marc:
You are full of surprises. I didn't think I'd see you advancing Lewontin's thesis.
On hate speech, I pretty much agree with you on the issue of injuriousness--claiming an identifiable group is engaged in poisoning the wells is certainly hate speech. On name-calling, I see there more of an incitement. For example, homophobia exists, right? Including gay-bashing? Within that toxic context, using slurs is part of the whole package. That's my view, anyway.
Agreed, though, that the analogy with libel/slander breaks down a little, although a case could be made, with some difficulty admittedly, for a parallel with defamation laws.
Interesting afternoon, Marc. I should thank you for that. But I have a garage in severe need of cleaning, and, for any smartasses here, I mean that literally. : )
Thanks to Dr Dawg for admitting that, like all leftists, he operates out of emotion rather than fact.
What a classic:
>When such facts are selectively used to bolster a clearly "moral" case, though, it's fair to call people on it.
Yeah, cuz we wouldn't want fact or our beliefs to influence our behaviour or anyone elses! Morality sucks man. Let's just do your own thing.
Dawg, once again you are such a pill. "Wonderful" may not have been the _exact_ word but yes I have you on record as giving me compliments about my writing, one just from last month.
How does it feel to have a gay man and a straight woman call you on your liberal cliches, eh?
I just did a post today about a Liberal Blogger that said Rig Pigs are to blame for crime. Whats that called?
Good grief, Kathy. You blogged about receiving hate mail because of your upcoming wedding, and proceeded to go on a tear against a certain Church. I sent you a note praising you for sounding left-wing--my joshing was obviously completely lost on you. (My congratulations on the wedding were sincere enough, though. And this is what I get for making nice. Sheesh.)
When did I "admit" that I operated out of emotion instead of fact? Did you fail to notice the use of "selectively" in what I actually said?
You are a kind of classic, Kathy--you write a "look at me" blog (nothing wrong with that, I hasten to add) and then, when someone does look, we get the "What are you looking at" routine. As I said (and I went back and checked), I've referred to that blog of yours about four times in the past year, but that somewhat scant attention is called "obsessive." You come over here to pick a fight with me when I referred to someone else's blog, and then you call me "obsessive?" Wow.
Reminds me of the time a while back that you did the exact-same thing on someone else's blog, too--and, when I responded, you called me a "stalker."
Counselling? Obsessiveness? A less-than-demanding job? Just take a good hard look in the mirror.
In fairness, the blog that I linked to in this thread does feature a fairly unpleasant comment by KS, so I guess it's fair enough to come over here and take a poke at me--it didn't happen out of the blue, as it did the first time. But my own blogpost on the subject wasn't about KS, as hard as that seems to be for her to imagine.
Michael Corens show on the FD fatwa was terrific. Connie came across very well.
Did you get kicked off of Mark Shea's blog too Dawg.? Hmmm let's see Terry Glavin gave you the boot, Kate at SDA gave you the boot. Seems there's a pattern there no? A mirror for someone is certainly in order.
Yeah, Fur, you're absolutely right. The great defenders of free debate and discussion should take a hard look at themselves. Incidentally, I was back on Shea's blog in a week--that was a simple misunderstanding.
And you have never kicked anyone from your blog Dawg?
Of course I have--for abuse, profanity and so on, not for expressing ideas with which I disagree. (You should know--you show up there from time to time.) In one recent case I banned a a "camper," who earned his dismissal by making indecent remarks to a female commenter. Total: about six bans in two years.
For the record, I was banned by Kate essentially for quoting her and some of her commenters on National Aboriginal Day--she has an aversion to mirrors, too. And I was banned by Terry Glavin for arguing that criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic. (I'm in good company there--he's banned literally dozens of people. It's what he does.)
I work with a number of Muslims and all of them are good, decent people; they're people I'm happy to see and proud to know.
Frankly I think all Canadians should be embarrassed by Bill Whatcott's behavior and speech. How many hearts do you suppose a man so full of hatred wins over to Christ? Really?
Why is Bill Whatcott full of hatred? Bill is eccentric, no doubt about that, but I've never known him to have a malicious intention about anyone.
I work with a number of Muslims and all of them are good, decent people; they're people I'm happy to see and proud to know.
That's great Christine. Now, what are you going to say about those Muslims who support Sharia Law? What about those Muslims who support killing homosexuals and women?
Suzanne, just a word of warning, Christine McCann is one of those political correctoids from the CBC forums. She like others like her, like to use blanket statements without demonstrating proof.
None uses the tired old ad hominem, and not very well. What do I think of Muslims who want to impose Sharia law? Well, it's in the current constitution of Afghanistan--Harper has us over there fighting for it, in effect. So, None, be consistent, and oppose Canadian involvement over there.
And, yup, some Muslims want to kill homosexuals. We're far more enlightened in Canada. Bishop Fred Henry just wants to stick them in jail. Suzanne wants to deny them protection under hate crime legislation. Anyone see a bit of a continuum here? How many social conservatives really differ, except in degree, with the values of Shariah?
Good for you, Christine, by the way. Nice to get a bit of sanity around here. I was feeling a bit queasy earlier on.
Speaking of prejudice, do you have evidence that Fred Henry wants to put them in jail? I don't know of any Catholic leaders who've said anything to that effect.
"Suzanne wants to deny them protection under hate crime legislation."
I want homosexuals protected-- but same protection for everyone.
"Anyone see a bit of a continuum here? How many social conservatives really differ, except in degree, with the values of Shariah? "
How many left-wingers differ, except in degree, with the values of Stalin?
I did a google search relating to Archbishop Fred Henry and jailing homosexuals. What he actually said was:
Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.
http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=208
Proscribe OR curtail. He didn't necessarily say that the State should send homosexuals to jail. It doesn't even mean that there should be a law against homosexual behaviour.
The sad part about it is that Bill Whatcott is not likely to fulfill his stated goal of converted any Muslims to Christianity with his pamphlet. You don't start a dialog with someone by telling them that their religion is violent and then expect them to come to your way of thinking. Did Whatscott actually believe that he was going to convince Muslims to consider Christianity or was he trying to evoke anger among Christians and Westerners? The intemperate nature of his pamphlet suggests that he was trying to fire up Christians with his over-the-top assertions.
I'd prefer that the hate-speech laws disappear but I'd also be pretty pleased if Bill Whatscott would tone it down. He isn't helping.
And, yup, some Muslims want to kill homosexuals. We're far more enlightened in Canada. Bishop Fred Henry just wants to stick them in jail.
You know he didn't say that and you're exaggerating. Nice try, but there are people out there who can weed through lies.
None uses the tired old ad hominem, and not very well. What do I think of Muslims who want to impose Sharia law? Well, it's in the current constitution of Afghanistan--Harper has us over there fighting for it, in effect. So, None, be consistent, and oppose Canadian involvement over there.
Actually, it wasn't ad hominem, it was a real question that wasn't addressed by Christine who gave a very facetious response. You didn't answer the question either, therefore, you sound intellectually dishonest.
You see, Christine gave the typical surface response, oh, I know many so and so's and they're so nice, all the while ignoring that there are good people and bad ones. In other words, her response doesn't add anything as it doesn't address the point of Mr. Whatcott's posting.
Psychols, I agree that the devout Muslim won't take that pamphlet seriously, but some non-devout Muslims might. Non-devout Catholics get taken in to the same kind of spiel against their own church.
Homosexuality? Henry says, and I quote, the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail it. If you can't figure out what that means, None, you're not very bright. But I don't make that assumption--rather, you're just being disingenuous. And our host is the same. What on earth do you thing "proscribe or curtail" means? When states "proscribe or curtail," they use coercion. That means punishment for transgression. That means jail--or, I will concede, fines.
Gee, no one answered my question. I asked,"How many hearts do you think Bill has turned to Christ?"
Answer me this, none: is the Bible the word of God or not? If it is, then should not Leviticus, or the Law, be followed?
Was Christ correct when he said the first and greatest commandment is to love thy God with all thy heart and thy mind, and that the second greatest commandment is like it:love thy neighbour as thyself? If all the Law hinges on these commandments, then didn't Moses get the Law all wrong ?
Read through Leviticus and tell me how the Law given in there differs from the five schools of Sharia Law.
Dawg
He lists a bunch of immoral behaviour, and then says proscribe OR curtail it. It could mean jailing homosexuals, but it doesn't have to mean that. You simply can't assume you know that he means jailing homosexuals when he's never said anything to that effect.
"But I don't make that assumption--rather, you're just being disingenuous. "
I'm not being disingenuous. I'm reading the statement for what it actually says: proscribe OR curtail-- using what means? It does not say.
"That means punishment for transgression. That means jail--or, I will concede, fines."
Curtail doesn't have to include punishment. It could mean a public health campaign on the dangers of homosexual activity. It could mean public policy that accepts a heterosexual norm and discourages homosexual behaviour. It could be a whole host of things. He basically says that homosexual behaviour has to be stopped one way or another. It doesn't mean that it involves jail.
Where I work, Christians are a minority, as are the Muslims,Hindus, and the agnostics. The most common religion where I work is Sikhism. Everyone gets along because we all respect each others' viewpoints.
If we read 1 Corinthians 13, it tells us how Christians should act. Matthew 7 tell to first take thy beam from thy own eye before attempting the mote from our brother's.
"Gee, no one answered my question. I asked,"How many hearts do you think Bill has turned to Christ?""
He may have brought a few. He says he has. Different tactics work on different people.
Now you answer my question: What about Bill Whatcott is hateful? Again, I have never known Bill to have any malicious thoughts about anyone.
Answer me this, none: is the Bible the word of God or not? If it is, then should not Leviticus, or the Law, be followed?
As far as the moral law is concerned: yes. As far as the punishments regarding various transgressions, no. The Law of Moses is based on a pre-understood set of morals. Homosexual behaviour was implicitly condemned under the Noahide Law. That law was a universal law for humanity, before the establishment of the Jewish People. When the Jewish people were established as a tribe, and the were led to freedom by Moses, they were given a law to rule their community, like any nation today would have a law. And that law included various means of recognizing crimes, prosecuting them and meting out justice through the forms of punishment (as well as how to conduct religious sacrifices, in age when religion and the politico-legal system were not separate). That was the function of the Mosaic Law for the Jewish People. It wasn't just a day-to-day catechism of moral behaviour like Our Catholic catechism is, but almost a kind of religio-political constitution.
There is an underlying morality to that Law, and that universal morality is binding on all of us. But insofar as laws dealt with religious ceremonies, crime and punishment, the application is obsolete for the Church today because the Church is not an earthly kingdom needing to run like an earthly kingdom. So that's why homosexual behaviour is still considered immoral, but it's not necessary to stone people who engage in sodomy.
"Was Christ correct when he said the first and greatest commandment is to love thy God with all thy heart and thy mind, and that the second greatest commandment is like it:love thy neighbour as thyself? If all the Law hinges on these commandments, then didn't Moses get the Law all wrong ?"
No. Because what Christ is issuing is a summary, based on a given religious culture where the rules of morality were already understood. Like any summary, it does not elaborate on the meaning of everything contained therein, and you can't read in 21st century notions of morality that no one would have dreamed of, if you want to understand the text. You have to understand what Christ meant by "love", and it doesn't mean just "being nice". It means wanting to see human beings live up to their potential, and homosexual behaviour does not do that, because God made people male and female: the sexes exist, among other reasons, so that they can fulfill themselves in each other.
"Read through Leviticus and tell me how the Law given in there differs from the five schools of Sharia Law."
For one thing, the death
"Where I work, Christians are a minority, as are the Muslims,Hindus, and the agnostics. The most common religion where I work is Sikhism. Everyone gets along because we all respect each others' viewpoints. "
So people who don't respect other people's viewpoints can't get along?
"If we read 1 Corinthians 13, it tells us how Christians should act. Matthew 7 tell to first take thy beam from thy own eye before attempting the mote from our brother's."
Are you implying something by saying that?
Curtail doesn't have to include punishment. It could mean a public health campaign on the dangers of homosexual activity....
Where's the "state's coercive power" in that? Suzanne, you're flailing. "Coercive power" means just what it says.
"Where's the "state's coercive power" in that? Suzanne, you're flailing. "Coercive power" means just what it says."
To proscribe (meaning making it illegal) OR curtail. Curtail doesn't mean making it illegal-- just cutting down. Coercive power doesn't necessarily mean the criminal justice system. Human Rights Tribunals have coercive powers, but they don't jail people. Children's Aid societies have co-ercive powers, but they don't jail people (although they can file for charges). The school system has coercive powers but it's not affiliated with the legal system.
There are all kinds of bodies that have coercive powers that do not involve the legal system.
But the state requires the legal system and/or the police to use coercion.
Christine, picking parts of the Bible without understanding what the Bible is and says, just displays your misunderstandings. Jesus replaced the old law and spoke of it in the New Testament. Now, while you're quoting St. Paul, turn to where he speaks of homosexuality.
Dr. Dawg, you're typically reacting with extremist conclusions. Take a deep breath here. Bishop Henry does not mean jail, nor did he say such a thing.
Christine, what about those muslims who support Sharia Law which demeans women? What about those Muslims who wish to kill homosexuals which Mr. Whatcott referred?
Suzanne, its hard to get Christine to answer a direct question. She makes a facetious comment and thinks that counters any argument against her statement. Amazing, truly amazing!
Commenting by HaloScan
