I usually post about evolutionary psychology and its relationship to conservative values, but I thought I'd post something light-hearted and different for a change.

I had a glorious childhood. I attended an all-boys private school and I had a blast. I'm still in touch with my friends from school. I also used to roam a lot around my neighbourhood on my own from age 6 onwards and my parents didn't mind at all. I'd walk or cycle to my friends house and we'd get the gang together and do something outside.

These days, I find most children not playing outside. They are usually in front of a screen, either chatting on social media or playing video games. Parents also seem to prefer locking up their kids inside. I don't know why that is.

What was your childhood like? Did you have fun?

How about your school? Did you like it or hate it?

Views: 250

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I usually post about evolutionary psychology and its relationship to conservative values,

Sure. For instance, a few hours ago you referred to black people as genetically inferior "barbarians", while citing the work of discreditedcross-burning crackpot Charles Murray.

but I thought I'd post something light-hearted and different for a change.

I'm sure you could use a break to do a little fence-mending.

What was your childhood like? Did you have fun?

It was good, thanks. Yes, I had fun.

How about your school? Did you like it or hate it?

I went to Catholic school. I always liked the education, but detested the religion.

"For instance, a few hours ago you referred to black people as genetically inferior "barbarians"" - I referred to criminal thugs who exhibited dark triad characteristics as barbarians. I stand by what I said.

The NY Times is a biased magazine that did a hit piece on Murray. If are the least bit open-minded, you can listen to him talking about the hit piece and his side of the story here. I have read his original book and use that to form my opinions; not some column by a biased hack reporter.

Dr. Charles Murray has done more for the black community than you or I. Just because you cling to your politically correct worldview does not make you a moral person who has actually helped any black person. PC worldview actually has done immense damage to the black community.

From this article called "The Black Family: 40 years of lies"

"Three thinkers in particular—Charles Murray, Lawrence Mead, and Thomas Sowell—though they did not always write directly about the black family, effectively changed the conversation about it. First, they did not flinch from blunt language in describing the wreckage of the inner city, unafraid of the accusations of racism and victim blaming that came their way. Second, they pointed at the welfare policies of the 1960s, not racism or a lack of jobs or the legacy of slavery, as the cause of inner-city dysfunction, and in so doing they made the welfare mother the public symbol of the ghetto’s ills. (Murray in particular argued that welfare money provided a disincentive for marriage, and, while his theory may have overstated the role of economics, it’s worth noting that he was probably the first to grasp that the country was turning into a nation of separate and unequal families.) And third, they believed that the poor would have to change their behavior instead of waiting for Washington to end poverty, as liberals seemed to be saying."

"I'm sure you could use a break to do a little fence-mending." - I really don't give two hoots what you think of me. So if you think I'm a racist homophobe KKK Nazi Hitler fascist, I am fine with that. This is exactly the kind of PC shaming used by closed-minded leftists to shut down a debate. At some point in your life son, you need to get the courage to seek the truth.

Also, many evolutionary psychologists define barbarianism as possessing dark triad tendencies - so you actually have a problem with evolutionary science :)

Also, many evolutionary psychologists define barbarianism as possessing dark triad tendencies - so you actually have a problem with evolutionary science :)

That's a straw man fallacy.

I am not arguing about the (unsourced) way you claim evolutionary psychologists define barbarism.

You are arguing that black people have inferior genetics and that welfare programs cause or exacerbate it.

"For instance, a few hours ago you referred to black people as genetically inferior "barbarians"" - I referred to criminal thugs who exhibited dark triad characteristics as barbarians. 

You referred to "black women from the projects" who "line up to have sex with" the "drug peddling thugs" as an example of a "barbaric environment" where "a female barbarian is sexually attracted to a male barbarian." Don't tell me you didn't.

"There is an atavistic module in female sexuality that is attracted to barbaric dominant thugs. In a barbaric environment, such genes would be beneficial for survival. The welfare state induces dysgenics. If you're a honest, hard working black man, black women from the projects will not give you the time of the day. If you're a drug-peddling thug with flash and bling, black women from the projects will line up to have sex with you. There is some research showing that blacks with prison record have fathered more children than blacks without criminal sentences. The welfare state induces this problem by making male provisioning redundant, thereby allowing black females from the projects to go for the thugs who turn them on." - Civilizationalist

"If such an experiment had been conducted on whites, asians, jews or anybody, the results would be the same - An upsurge in criminal behaviour and barbarism." -Civilizationist

I stand by what I said.

Sure you do.

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour on it, the more it contracts." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

The NY Times is a biased magazine that did a hit piece on Murray.

You're howling about bias while you cite paid right-wing lobbying organizations as your sources of information.

That's pretty funny.

If are the least bit open-minded, you can listen to him talking about the hit piece and his side of the story here. I have read his original book and use that to form my opinions; not some column by a biased hack reporter.

Is the special task force of the American Psychological Association biased as well because they discredited Murry's work? Or will you be ignoring that part entirely?

"There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. [...] It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." -APA task force on Murray's work

Dr. Charles Murray has done more for the black community than you or I.

Sure. For instance, there was that cross he burned on a hill in the South at the height of the civil rights movement.

Just because you cling to your politically correct worldview does not make you a moral person who has actually helped any black person. PC worldview actually has done immense damage to the black community.

I'm clinging to what is true, and I won't accept anything less, especially form the likes of you. When you fail to support your claims, repeating them over and over again doesn't make them true.

From this article called "The Black Family: 40 years of lies". "Three thinkers in particular—Charles Murray, Lawrence Mead, and Thomas Sowell—though they did not always write directly about the black family, effectively changed the conversation about it.... "

Special pleading.

This does not support and is irrelevant to Murray's claim that blacks posted lower scores than whites on intelligence tests because of genetics.

I really don't give two hoots what you think of me. So if you think I'm a racist homophobe KKK Nazi Hitler fascist, I am fine with that.

You're a racist.

I've no idea where you stand on the other issues, as I've not seen you mention them yet.

This is exactly the kind of PC shaming used by closed-minded leftists to shut down a debate. At some point in your life son, you need to get the courage to seek the truth.

I'm shutting down the debate? Really? Go back and look at the half-dozen times you stopped responding in our "debate" in this thread about welfare and barbarians. You cut and run every time. Now you're talking to me about courage.

Priceless.

At this point, you're too close minded to see the ugly side of human nature.

"This does not support and is irrelevant to Murray's claim that blacks posted lower scores than whites on intelligence tests because of genetics." - IQ does differ across races. There is widespread agreement across scientists on this. There are several theories on why Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ - Professional selection theories come to mind. Several theories on why people from tropics have lower IQ - because cold weather naturally selects for higher IQ. You can look it up yourself if you're curious about the truth.

If the insane social experiment of the welfare state had been conducted on any race, dysgenics would naturally result - this is true. People have been saying this since the 1970s. Shockley said it first, and he was a noble prize winner.

Google is your friend if you're the least bit curious.

Aren't you even the least bit curious about the evolution of the homo sapiens species? To me, anthropology has been a fascinating subject.

Why do Kenyans and Ghanians dominate in marathon races? There is a very intriguing theory on that. You can look it up if you're curious.

Why do Tamil Brahmins from India dominate in the spelling bees? Because their ancestors had to memorize the scriptures to be included in their community.

Why do Indians have the world's smallest penises? Possibly because they are the longest existing monogamous culture in the world and monogamy removes the selection pressures on penis sizes.

Why do black babies typically cry the least and Chinese babies cry the most? You can look it up if you like.

Do you know that even language constructs could be selected for? For instance, a person with Indo-European genes could be better suited to speak Indo-European languages than Chinese/ Japanese languages. And vice-versa. The theory of biological origins of language constructs is utterly fascinating.

There is a world of information out there on anthropology that you're missing out on because of your adherence to blank slate  equalism. Equalism has been disproved many times - You can read Steven Pinker's books discrediting the blank slate

There are many blogs/ forums discussing these topics, among others.

Lion of the blogosphere, hbdchick, Jaymans, Steve Sailor, West Hunter, Human Biological Diversity, Gene expression, evo and proud.

My blog - humancivilizations.wordpress.com also deals with some of these topics (although it's not my main focus)

There are many blogs/ forums discussing these topics, among others.

That's an ambiguity fallacy.

Be specific. Which part of "these topics" are you referring to and how does this support your argument?

Aren't you even the least bit curious about the evolution of the homo sapiens species? To me, anthropology has been a fascinating subject. Why do Kenyans and Ghanians dominate in marathon races? There is a very intriguing theory on that. You can look it up if you're curious. Why do Tamil Brahmins from India dominate in the spelling bees? Because their ancestors had to memorize the scriptures to be included in their community. Why do Indians have the world's smallest penises? Possibly because they are the longest existing monogamous culture in the world and monogamy removes the selection pressures on penis sizes. Why do black babies typically cry the least and Chinese babies cry the most? You can look it up if you like. Do you know that even language constructs could be selected for? For instance, a person with Indo-European genes could be better suited to speak Indo-European languages than Chinese/ Japanese languages. And vice-versa. The theory of biological origins of language constructs is utterly fascinating.

Obfuscation.

This has nothing to do with your claim that black people have inferior genetics and that welfare programs cause or exacerbate it.

There is a world of information out there on anthropology that you're missing out on because of your adherence to blank slate equalism. Equalism has been disproved many times - You can read Steven Pinker's books discrediting the blank slate.

That's a straw man fallacy and an ad hom fallacy.

I am not arguing for "equalism". You are arguing that black people have inferior genetics and that welfare programs cause or exacerbate it. (And you're failing quite miserably.)

"This does not support and is irrelevant to Murray's claim that blacks posted lower scores than whites on intelligence tests because of genetics." - IQ does differ across races.

That's a straw man fallacy.

Murray is not simply saying "IQ differs by race" and that's it.

Murray is attributing the difference in IQ between blacks and whites to a specific cause: genetics. This has been debunked.

Dismissed.

If the insane social experiment of the welfare state had been conducted on any race,

That's an complex question fallacy. It contains the built-in presumptions that welfare is an experiment conducted on the black race...

dysgenics would naturally result -

...and that dysgenics-- defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species-- have been the result in black people.

this is true.

So you keep claiming. Evidence?

People have been saying this

To be clear: the word 'this' refers specifically to your thesis: that black people have inferior genetics and that welfare programs cause or exacerbate it.

since the 1970s. Shockley said it first, and he was a noble prize winner. Google is your friend if you're the least bit curious.

That's a burden of proof fallacy.

Claiming to have an argument (over and over again) is not presenting and supporting an argument.

Dismissed.

“I have read his original book and use that to form my opinions”.

If you referenced Murray’s work as being his opinion and not some evolutionary truism then it would be more open to “civilised” debate. However today what you are politely calling your opinions were what you dogmatically asserted as the “truth” yesterday.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service