ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Debate the Dragon

Puff the Magic Dragon was talking very brave until it was suggested that he debate me himself.
Go ahead and debate Vox yourself, puff. If he's the soft target you think he is, you should really be able to make him look foolish.

Debate what? What are his actual positions? That's what this is all about. He puffs himself up into a controversial figure on the internet and when someone calls him out on it, you find out it was all smoke and mirrors. Is that supposed to be impressive? These issues aren't as cut and dried as you people seem to think they are, and apparently neither does Vox. You guys have bought into the persona as much as those "rabbits" have.
Now, since Puff admitted that he is insufficiently knowledgeable to debate me on an economic subject, we will avoid economics despite it being one of my specialties. So, here are five actual positions that I offer Puff the Magic Dragon to debate me on. If he runs like Myers, Martin, Scalzi, and others, we will all know the value of his opinion.
  1. That One Bright Start to Guide Them is a great book and The Wasp Factory is a dreadful one. Oh, wait, sorry, I agreed to debate that with Phil Sandifier on a left-wing SF podcast. Let's start over.
  1. That there are a series of continental-scale wars on the medium-term horizon that will be vicious, unconventional, and are likely to result in severe racial and national separatism.
  2. That John Scalzi is a fraud.
  3. That "The American Tolkien" is not a credible title for George R.R. Martin.
  4. That "marital rape" is a logical, historical, and legal contradiction in terms.
  5. That all modern human beings are not genetically equal.
That seems like a nice broad range of subjects from which to choose. I thought it was interesting to learn that for some people, the Pakman interview was informative in helping them understand my problem communicating with people:
For the record, Vox was correct about the common law. He did seem caught off guard about the fact that rape, even within marriage, is against the law in most states if not all. Pakman tried to use this as a "GOTCHA!" moment, and Vox looked confused, even though his point was not invalidated and his argument was still correct. The average person would come across thinking Vox was wrong, though.

This was actually the first time I really made sense of how Vox's mind works. As an earlier commenter said, Vox is so far ahead that it seems to stump him that someone isn't making the same logical jumps as quickly as he does -- having to explain every step is very annoying.
It's not always annoying (although it often is) but it is usually confusing. This is especially true when I am dealing with someone new because I have no idea at what point their ability to follow the train of logic is going to fail without warning. I was very confused when Pakman brought up US law in a bizarre attempt to rebut my reference to the historical Common Law. That's rather like pointing out that the US lost in Vietnam to rebut a claim that the US invaded Normandy in World War II.

Where does one even go with that? Try to give him a basic primer on the historical basis for US law? Tell him that he's an ignorant MPAI member and leave it at that? The best thing would have been to point out that his reference to US law was irrelevant and to observe that the post to which he referred was written in response to an Indian court upholding section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, except I didn't recall that at the time because I had no idea I was going to be asked about a short three-paragraph blog post from over a year ago.

Rhetorically speaking, I suppose the best thing to do if I'm concerned about my self-image is to say "so what" and unmask the fact that he can't follow the train of thought. But I try to be a polite guest. Perhaps I will need to rethink that policy if the host is an ambush artist; virtually none of the interviews I'd given in the past attempted to play gotcha without giving me fair warning about what the subjects would be beforehand.

I highlighted the irrelevance of his appeal to US law by reminding him that I don't live in the USA. Which I have no doubt sounded like a non sequitur to many, only the non sequitur was Pakman's. But I can't help it if a lot of people didn't understand that, because I can't simultaneously fill in the gaps in their knowledge and defend myself against a dishonest, time-limited ambush at the same time.

Labels: ,

238 Comments:

1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous DavidKathome April 27, 2015 5:09 AM  

Puff, I recommend you go with choice #1, as you can save face in the short-term since anything you claim will happen will have to wait for the medium-term to see what happens. And you can always hide if Vox turns out to be right.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 April 27, 2015 5:11 AM  

6/ That fair and unfair have been used to invalidate right and wrong.

Jury Nullification is like a nuclear weapon sitting on everyone's lounge room mantel piece that no-one knows about. Who needs guns when the common man can common-law nuke them.

Blogger Krul April 27, 2015 5:17 AM  

I know nothing about puff. Is he (she?) inclined to disagree with any of those propositions?

Blogger Matt April 27, 2015 5:21 AM  

People have a hard time grasping the difference between common law, case law, writ. They dont realize theyll be navigating a minefield. Their attachment to the law is similar to an evolutionists belief that evolution is end all be all, and long ago settled by the Science Lords. They have no idea why they think how they think or believe what they believe. All while sitting on their couches watching procedurals and law dramas barely hiding their post modern influences. MPAI indeed.

Btw did anyone else snicker as Jon Snow executed Janos Slynt?

Anonymous Steve April 27, 2015 5:25 AM  

Historically, rape was treated as a species of aggravated assault. Marital rape is a new concept in most Western societies.

It didn't become part of English law till 1991, a result of some blatant judicial activism in the House of Lords acting in its role as the supreme court.

The case that prompted the invention of marital rape was an unpleasant one. (Rape prosecutions always are.) The man and wife informally separated and she went to stay with her parents. The husband broke in, beat her up, and forced himself on her.

Historically the husband would have been able to use marriage as a defence to a charge of rape against his wife. But that doesn't mean he'd have gotten away with it. Actual bodily harm carries a sentence of up to five years in prison.

Blogger Shimshon April 27, 2015 5:31 AM  

I understand utilizing common law as the basis for argument, but isn't stating one's residence in Italy (or that you didn't live in the US), where English common law is not applicable even historically, also somewhat a non sequitur?

Blogger Shimshon April 27, 2015 5:33 AM  

Is Pakman's assertion that "marital rape" illegal in most US states in fact true? Not like he backed it up, and I doubt he even researched it, although I agree that challenging it in the interview would've been foolish either way.

Anonymous The Obvious April 27, 2015 5:47 AM  

"The case that prompted the invention of marital rape was an unpleasant one. (Rape prosecutions always are.) The man and wife informally separated and she went to stay with her parents. The husband broke in, beat her up, and forced himself on her. Historically the husband would have been able to use marriage as a defence to a charge of rape against his wife. But that doesn't mean he'd have gotten away with it. Actual bodily harm carries a sentence of up to five years in prison."

So they were still married then, and marital rape "law" was built on a fundamentally dishonest premise, and the pre-existing laws such as assault/GBH would have covered the violence towards her.

Like SJWs, feminists lie about everything.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 5:50 AM  

I understand utilizing common law as the basis for argument, but isn't stating one's residence in Italy (or that you didn't live in the US), where English common law is not applicable even historically, also somewhat a non sequitur?

Dialectically speaking, perhaps. But he'd made it clear that he had abandoned dialectic by that point.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler April 27, 2015 5:55 AM  

Slightly OT, David Futrelle, leader of the SJWs, the tolerance and diversity bandwagon, demonstrated their tolerance and diversity by banning me from his site.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 27, 2015 6:02 AM  

That "The American Tolkien" is not a credible title for George R.R. Martin.

Dear Lord, who is saying that?

Well, presumably people who have never read Tolkien.

I will grant that TV's GOT is waaaay better than the Hobbit movie trilogy but that's hardly Tolkien's fault.

Anonymous zen0 April 27, 2015 6:18 AM  

Maybe the phrase "So what you are saying is..." actually means "I don't understand what you just said..."

That would explain a lot.

Anonymous Steve April 27, 2015 6:21 AM  

Cataline Sergius - Dear Lord, who is saying that?

Lev Grossman at TIME. (Yes, TIME is still a thing.)

Thing is, though, would you want this sort of praise? Grossman is trying to be kind, but I couldn't think of a more disgusting compliment than being told I exemplify the spirit of this age:

In 2005 I wrote a review of George R.R. Martin's novel A Feast for Crows in which I called him "the American Tolkien." The phrase has stuck to him, as it was meant to. I believed Martin was our age's and our country's answer to the master of epic fantasy. Now it's six years later, and I've read Martin's new novel, A Dance with Dragons, and I'm happy to report that I was totally right.

Martin has produced — is producing, since the series isn't over — the great fantasy epic of our era. It's an epic for a more profane, more jaded, more ambivalent age than the one Tolkien lived in. Tolkien was a veteran of the Somme, and The Lord of the Rings was partly written during World War II. (It was published in 1954.) Tolkien wrote at a time when it really seemed as if a war was on for the fate of civilization.

Now we're not even sure what civilization is. George R.R. Martin (his R.R. stands for Raymond Richard; Tolkien's stands for Ronald Reuel) was born in 1948. He didn't serve at the Somme, though he may have played through it once or twice in a video game. A Song of Ice and Fire — which is the rather florid title of Martin's series — is an epic for us, for the way we live now and the way we fantasize now.


What do you mean "we", kemosabe?

The Obvious - So they were still married then, and marital rape "law" was built on a fundamentally dishonest premise,

Yes, it was. The judge simply declared that the preceding three hundred years or so of English common law on marital rape was a "fiction" that was "no longer useful".

Useful to whom, I wonder.

and the pre-existing laws such as assault/GBH would have covered the violence towards her.

Yes it would have. And though the accused in that case was a disgusting individual who deserved to be locked up, hard cases generally make for poor laws. It's not as if husbands in England were running about like sex fiends, constantly ravishing their wives before 1991 (if you listen to married English women, they'll complain that the opposite is true). There were only about four prior recorded cases in the entire 20th century where a man used the martial defence against a rape charge.

So this was a solution in search of a problem.

Unfortunately, once you let judges and prosecutors and the police into your marital bed, they're pretty hard to kick out.

Anonymous Usualjay April 27, 2015 6:22 AM  

@Cataline Sergius - this was the gush piece at Time where I first saw "American Tolkien" applied to GRRM. http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2081774,00.html

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 April 27, 2015 6:32 AM  

Shimshon, The English Common law carried on and into the expanding united States after the Declaration of Independence. It could be equated to accumulated cultural wisdom. Unless Statute law specifically rescinds it, it remains even to this day.
Even then a Jury trumps every Statute with their real powers of nullification. If only it were understood.
It's not really correct to say there are three centres of government: the Executive/ Legislature/ Judicial. The fourth is and remains, the people.
a blipvert for sanity

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 6:34 AM  

Perhaps you missed this, Quotable Quotes. I will give you a second opportunity to retract. You wrote:

"Vox is not a principled writer. He stands by nothing he has written or said unless he has categorically stated he was serious when saying or writing it. His words are worthless."

That is totally false. I stand by everything I have written that I have not specifically admitted to be mistaken or specifically disavowed. Now, do you retract your assertion quoted above?

Blogger Matt April 27, 2015 6:41 AM  

Understand that just because the woman in that first marital rqpe case was still married doesn't mean the husband doesnt deserve to be beaten to death. He should be beten to death. He just shouldnt be tried for rape.

Anonymous totenhenchen April 27, 2015 6:46 AM  

Never ascribe to villainy what can be explained by stupidity. Unless you're dealing with an SJW/feminist, in which case it is both.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 April 27, 2015 6:55 AM  

The point I wanted to enter into the record Vox, is that when a Jury sits, they are not just judging the facts of the case and claims of the claimants, they are judging the law itself. In a world of smoke and mirrors where even the ownership of courts is suspect, this point, methinks, has been thoroughly obscured by those with evil intent.
If you wish to be heard fairly in a debate, let the audience be aware of their powers over claimant A, claimant B, and every premise - where or not A and B agree on them.

Anonymous Flinders April 27, 2015 6:55 AM  

I was introduced to your writing by two SJW types attacking and dismissing your writing and opinions. One had read TIA and the other did a quick wiki search and scrolled until offended. I've no doubt you know you'll never win with those people without them having a sudden burst of self-awareness.

But your recent interview is sure to have got interest where there wasn't before and few if any new detractors.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 7:02 AM  

But your recent interview is sure to have got interest where there wasn't before and few if any new detractors.

Sure, except keep in mind that about one-fifth as many people saw the interview as visited here that day alone. A lot of people who made up that 15k video viewers were already regulars here, and their overall perception was "meh, not bad, considering".

Frankly, if the three negative consequences are "David Pakman and Vox Day are both serial rapists", "Vox Day is anti-free speech", and "Vox Day needs to start cutting weight", I don't see a problem. The first is based on a ridiculous standard and would apply to nearly every adult man and woman on the planet, the second is obviously false, and the third is obviously true.

I mean, I either need to cut to 185 or go for 215. And at my height, the latter would start to look ridiculous.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 7:02 AM  

Not based on your interview answer.

Very well. You're spammed.

Anonymous Giuseppe April 27, 2015 7:03 AM  

Vox,
If I may:
While I follow your train of thought perfectly, I have learnt (only through painful experience, and still doing so daily) that what people like you and I often ascribe to intentional malice (BECAUSE LOGIC DAMMIT! LOGIC!!! AND FACTS! AND REALITY!! YOU LYING SCUMBAG!!) is in actual facts, often, merely the result of Homo Quasi Erectus being itself without a pressing and imminent cause of death not bearing down on him as a direct consequence of not directing every neurone he/she has at the immediate issue being disscussed.

It's a kind of reflexive poo flinging/mind rape/ fart-eat-pick muh ear, monkey movement. Yes they are capable of more, but habits...and lack of imminent survival value in DOING muh best...

In the depths of his mind, people like Pakman do not really realise what they are doing. Hence "forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

I mention this only because until I realised my "Aspie" fixation on reality and facts is aboit as Aspie as Kirk Douglas on planet of the apes, it was a huge source of frustration. Being able to second guess the monkey movements before they happen is much more useful in getting something to filter through into the apes. And if not it at least makes things more entertaining.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 7:08 AM  

I mean, I either need to cut to 185 or go for 215. And at my height, the latter would start to look ridiculous.

Stop body shaming yourself! This is a safe space!

Anonymous Steve April 27, 2015 7:11 AM  

Giuseppe - my "Aspie" fixation on reality and facts is aboit as Aspie as Kirk Douglas on planet of the apes

Charlton Heston?

I hated that film, and every time I go past the monkey house at the zoo I give them the fingers. Damn, dirty apes.

Blogger Remo April 27, 2015 7:15 AM  

Great I got paraphrased by an SJW that's going to ruin my day. Okay the guy you were debating is an idiot. And you brought up English common law as a defense which is very much like the following scenario:

Mr. Turtle: "Gosh Vox - I sure would like to jump down there into that there berry field as I see lots of tasty goodies."

Vox: "Mr. Turtle - if you proceed to perambulate that tilage by first taking a dive from this precipice your momentum at time of impact according to the falling constant of 9.8m/sec would match terminal velocity."

Mr. Turtle: "Huh? Okay seeya........ splat"

How this should be explained -

Vox: "Mr. Turtle don't do that! Mr. Turtle go SPLAT!!!"

Here's how Pakman would have understood your point rather than walking away with a confused look on his face....

"Rape is the act of sex without the consent of the other party. Since in a marriage blanket consent for sex is given the "crime" of marital rape is a misnomer. It might be properly called physical assault and could be charged THAT WAY I suppose but by definition THIS isn't rape. It might be illegal under the current laws, it might not be nice, but it is most certainly NOT the crime of rape as has been historically understood.

Give definition - Rape is sex without the other parties consent
State fact - In marriage blanket consent is given
State conclusion - Marital rape is therefore an oxymoron like having tea and no tea at the same time.It might get you past the screening door but it won't win you debates.

If he invokes U.S. law or any countries law fine - then that country is attempting to change the classic definition of an English word. Ask him if believes the Sun is the moon if Congress says it is.

Point being you are smarter than this guy and because he didn't understand your argument he believes that he won the debate on the facts. I realize that is ridiculous but that is what most people believe if they don't understand something and that is what the average person thought when they saw that debate. As an afterthought - what are the chances that he went home and read up on English common law after your discussion?

Anonymous Giuseppe April 27, 2015 7:20 AM  

Steve,
Yes, Charlton. I deserve a beating for that faux pas. At work and Trying to... Oh dammit! Just went and had a monkey moment myself you see? That is why I will self flagellate later. Someone has to do it, else how will we LEARN!

Blogger Michael Maier April 27, 2015 7:24 AM  

Don't chimp out, now.

Blogger Henry Smith April 27, 2015 7:32 AM  

One thing that no one has mentioned yet: Pakman was obviously incredul ous that Vox believes different races show differences in measured IQ. Few issues in psychology have been more widely studied or better documented. And yet...Pakman obviously thought that belief in this well-proven, intuitive fact was believing the earth is flat! Quite amazing, really.

Blogger Remo April 27, 2015 7:38 AM  

Agreed Henry Smith and had he allowed Vox 10 seconds to follow it up with "If I said Blacks were better basketball players than whites would you disagree?" Okay so the only racial differences that exist in the universe are ones that positively increase the perceived worth of non-white races over whites? No other racial differences exist - ever - correct? I'd bet the farm that he wouldn't try to say the races are equal on the metric of basketball and if he made a case for this than it automatically leads to the conclusion that the NBA is racist.

Trapping this schmuck is easy if time were allowed.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 7:52 AM  

Point being you are smarter than this guy and because he didn't understand your argument he believes that he won the debate on the facts. I realize that is ridiculous but that is what most people believe if they don't understand something and that is what the average person thought when they saw that debate.

Yes, I am aware of that. Of course, it wasn't a debate, it was an interview. An interview about GamerGate and the game industry.

The average person didn't see the interview. There have been 19,227 viewings of it, four of them mine as I just checked. Since it was posted on April 24th, there have been 200,865 pageviews here.

So, I suggest that Mr. Pakman has considerably more cause to be concerned about my response to his dishonest and deceptive interview than I do about my sub-optimal performance in it.

Anonymous Stingray April 27, 2015 7:54 AM  

Pakman was obviously incredul ous that Vox believes different races show differences in measured IQ.

I don't think so. I think Pakman was incredulous that Vox would actually have the nerve to voice this. What Pakman couldn't wrap his mind around, was that Vox believes that all humans have the exact same value.

Liberals inherently believe that intelligence makes a person more valuable than those less intelligent. So they automatically believe that if you think one race might be more intelligent than another, that you must think that race is superior. This is why the intelligence between races debate scares them so much. It makes them the racists and they can't worm away from it.

You can't use other metrics like athletic ability because, even though they can see it, they cannot comprehend how a human could be of equal value to another when you compare athletic ability to intelligence. In their own minds, in comparing the two, one is inherently more valuable than the other, so the intelligent person is more valuable. This scares the tar out of them that this would make them the racists they believe us to be.

We don't compare the metrics because we know that all human value is the same regardless of the metric used.

Blogger Darth Toolpodicus April 27, 2015 8:01 AM  

"I mean, I either need to cut to 185 or go for 215"

Nah, go heavy or go home. I said the same thing when I was holding onto 198. You'll grow into the Damage Tank/Meat Shield role.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 27, 2015 8:23 AM  

@ Steve

Martin has produced — is producing, since the series isn't over — the great fantasy epic of our era. It's an epic for a more profane, more jaded, more ambivalent age than the one Tolkien lived in.

Good Lord, what a tongue bath!

J.R.R. Tolkien created from whole cloth a world that every fantasy writer that followed, has to either consciously build upon or consciously reject entirely. He created a contextual and conceptual heroic myth for the modern English speaking civilization. The English Speaking Peoples had never really had one before that. Just about every other culture did but not the English.*

People from other cultures enjoy Middle Earth stories but it doesn't really speak to them in the same way. Lord of the Rings was the most approachable but what Tolkien was really trying to do shows forth most brightly in the Silmarillion, (if you can wade your way through it).

Martin on the other hand only speaks to the all pervasive nihilism that is infecting western culture. It is in touch with today's l'air du temps but it ends there. We are in for a very, very rough patch ahead and lot of us aren't going to survive it but once the west starts to rebuild Lord of the Rings will still be viewed as a classic. Song of Ice and Fire will be viewed as a rather dreary footnote from the Crazy Years and relegated to the scratch and dent bin of English literature.




(*note: the Arthurian cycle was a product of Edward III's fancies 1350 is awhile back but is hardly the dawn of time*)

Blogger Nate April 27, 2015 8:23 AM  

The funny thing about Puff's idiotic comment is that he thinks you said something the long time readers haven't always known.

Wait... Vox has complex positions on complex issues?

No way.

You didn't say anything in the interview you haven't said before in terms of equality or the value judgement of intellect. Hell plenty of times here you've called extreme intellect more akin to a disability than a blessing.

and now idiots like Puff want to point and say " HA HA! VOX ISN'T A THE RACIST YOU RACISTS THOUGHT HE WAS!"

Meanwhile we've understood your position from the beginning... and racism never had anything to do with it.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 8:32 AM  

Well you changed the argument from not all races are genetically equal to:

5 That all modern human beings are not genetically equal.

I can't argue with that. There are serious chromosomal abnormalities that literally cripple the infants born with these. In fact, some genetic abnormalities are lethal.

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water. I highly recommend that you review the information on genetics before you try to defend that POV, Vox.

Blogger D. Lane April 27, 2015 8:42 AM  

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water. I highly recommend that you review the information on genetics before you try to defend that POV, Vox.

Do you intend to shoot that cannon, or are you intent just pointing to it?

Blogger D. Lane April 27, 2015 8:43 AM  

*content

Anonymous joe doakes April 27, 2015 8:43 AM  

@guest: you lost me. What's your argument? All races are genetically equal? There are no races? Please clarify.

Anonymous AbuDhabi April 27, 2015 8:45 AM  

>But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water.

But they're not genetically equal. That's what makes them different races. If they were genetically equal, there would be no way to tell them apart.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 8:46 AM  

"I can't simultaneously fill in the gaps in their knowledge and defend myself against a dishonest, time-limited ambush at the same time."

There's a lot of that going around these days.

Anonymous Alexander April 27, 2015 8:47 AM  

Well if it is 'easy' as you say, don't leave us hanging in suspense.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 8:48 AM  

" . . . the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water."

Vitamin D.

Anonymous joe doakes April 27, 2015 8:49 AM  

Minn. Stat. 609.349: a person does not commit criminal sexual conduct if the complainant is the actor's legal spouse; unless they're living separately and one has filed for divorce. There is no "marital rape" in Minnesota. Your interviewer is mistaken.

Blogger Shimshon April 27, 2015 8:55 AM  

joe doakes, thanks for entering that into the public record! I knew "illegal in all 50 states" had to be just so much mouthing off. There is almost no policy that all 50 states are in agreement on, even "obvious" ones that "everyone" supposedly agrees with. Even policies that have been "federalized."

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 9:03 AM  

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water.

I recommend you review your logic. You're completely wrong.

Blogger Bard April 27, 2015 9:11 AM  

Vox is not beach body ready?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 27, 2015 9:13 AM  

Watched the last half of Maher last night in waiting for GoT and frankly speaking if a right wing type went on that show and rhetorically dominated they would boot him/her. Every conservative that goes on that show might as well start each statement with "but let me try and explain" as they tailgate on Maher & Co's rhetoric.

Watching Maher just firmed my idea that their rhetoric is shallow and brittle. His closing statement on gun control was to say that gun violence is all the fault of the 1/3 of America that is "redneck." Really?

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 27, 2015 9:16 AM  

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water.

If you don't know the difference between haplogroup and haplotype. If you haven't looked at any of the gene linked behavior studies. If your knowledge of genetics begins and ends with Mendel for better still if you had never actually heard of Mendel. Then yes, I would have to grand that it would be easy to blow it out of the water.

There is no denying that in ignorance, there is power.

Anonymous AbuDhabi April 27, 2015 9:19 AM  

> If your knowledge of genetics begins and ends with Mendel for better still if you had never actually heard of Mendel.

Mendel is entirely sufficient to show that races a) exist, b) are not equal.

Anonymous The other robot April 27, 2015 9:38 AM  

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water.

Over at West Hunter Cochran said:

Black kids are somewhat precocious in motor skills compared to whites: on average they walk about a month earlier, East Asians about a month later.

Of course, you only have to go to a Costco in a state with blacks and Asians and notice that the black kids have robust bodies with smallish heads and the East Asian kids have dinky little bodies with enormous heads ...

Blogger Bogey April 27, 2015 9:42 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Cluttermonkey April 27, 2015 9:57 AM  

Vox: I'm not sure if what I'm going to say is moot or not, but I'm not trying to play Captain Obvious.

I believe Pakman brought US law up simply because rabbits can't make value judgements for themselves. The state and it's laws are the rabbits' only moral compass, albeit a very poor one, especially when these laws are passed according to warren's feelings.

Thus, the appeal to current US law is nothing more than an appeal to authority, and an alarm bell to any rabbit that he should align his position according to the warren's collective feeling on the subject. Accordingly, all logical thought on the subject has to be abondoned by the rabbit to avoid social ostracism.

This brings me back to the interview: it was clear (and has been of virtually every critisism or attack the rabbits have levelled at you for as long as I've been a reader) that the rabbits aren't upset or angry because of the content of any intellectual position you might hold or change or just muse on. They are simply upset that you are voicing any different opinion or position than that of their warren. Thus they appeal to every authority they can think of in their own lives, and have no ability to understand why this is a logical fallacy, is irrelevent to any intellectual discussion, or isn't even relevent to someone in another country. Never is there any serious discussion of your actual positions.

I thought your interjecting that you don't even live in the US was the quickest and easiest route for any non-rabbit to come to the realisation that Pakman brought up an entirely irrelevent and logically fallacious argument. Had your exchange been given in the written word, I'm sure you would have dismissed it better and less polite than you ended up doing.

Anonymous Aziz Poonawalla April 27, 2015 10:19 AM  

Long time lurker, probably a SJW by the prevailing definition. I have a question - as Vox has implied but not stated explicitly, and the wonderful Mr. Turtle allegory above made explicit, is it correct that the argument that "there's no such thing as marital rape" is primarily an objection on semantic terms? Ie, because of common law, because marriage is a "blanket consent", etc etc - VD's objection to the phrase is based on it violating the rules of grammatical logic like any other oxymoron?

regardless of the answer to my question - where i'd disagree is the assertion, implied or explicit, that marriage is any kind of blanket consent to anything. That's the assertion I'd like to see VD spend some time elaborating on.

Blogger LBD April 27, 2015 10:21 AM  

How did you wind up living in Italy? And how can you possibly lose weight if you live in Italy? The foooood....

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 10:25 AM  

"- where i'd disagree is the assertion, implied or explicit, that marriage is any kind of blanket consent to anything."

I which case it is rendered meaningless.

" . . .how can you possibly lose weight if you live in Italy? The foooood...."

Will still be there tomorrow.

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 10:33 AM  

Must... not... join in on comments...

I must force myself to learn coding instead of answering stuff which will most likely be answered by someone else...

Blogger rcocean April 27, 2015 10:34 AM  

Its amazing how little people like Paxman know. Does anyone really believe the races are equal in every single way? Does anyone really believe that Jews and Blacks are equal in intelligence or athletic ability? Or that Asians are as tall as Nordics? Even odder is the believe by Paxman that a Hispanic/Native American would believe in "white supremacy" or that the assertion of racial difference automatically means the speaker believes in white supremacy. Given the jewish/east Asian high IQ - you'd have to be a Jewish/Asian supremist to assert it. Or just someone who believes in reality

Anonymous FrankNorman April 27, 2015 10:34 AM  


That there are a series of continental-scale wars on the medium-term horizon that will be vicious, unconventional, and are likely to result in severe racial and national separatism.
That John Scalzi is a fraud.
That "The American Tolkien" is not a credible title for George R.R. Martin.
That "marital rape" is a logical, historical, and legal contradiction in terms.
That all modern human beings are not genetically equal.


Wait, wait wait...
If the first one on the list is true.... then why the hell should anyone care about the second and third points?
Shouldn't we all be digging ourselves bunkers or something?

Anonymous The other robot April 27, 2015 10:35 AM  

The Shogoths are unlikely to be happy with this homage to GRRM.

Anonymous Steveo April 27, 2015 10:37 AM  

Aziz: Before going any further with your thoughts on marriage, please review the concept of vows with regard to the same.

In marriage, these are common:

to have & to hold? (boo-yah)
to love & to cherish?
forsaking all others?
for better or worse?
in sickness & in health?
till death do us part?

These are like a serious promise, a commitment not taken lightly... but as an SJW, perhaps they are just words that can mean anything, anytime, whenever you want.


Anonymous liljoe April 27, 2015 10:40 AM  

finally had the opportunity to watch some of the pakman interview, had to chuckle. they can't help themselves can they?

who said "war is a thing of pretense"?

Mr. Day knows what he's doing.

Anonymous The other robot April 27, 2015 10:49 AM  

The Shogoths are unlikely to be happy about this homage to GRRM.

Blogger Shimshon April 27, 2015 10:51 AM  

Aziz, scare-quoting "consent" (or "blanket consent") does not make it a concept with no justification. It is in fact, part of the historical definition of marriage. Now, some cultures condoned or even encouraged violence against wives in pursuit of this assumed consent. We in the west, for various reasons, not only don't practice this, we have laws against such, as others have pointed out. Appealing to such a concept as marital rape is not needed, because of this nebulous concept of "consent" (how far do you insist said consent must be enforced?) in a relationship where said consent is agreed to at the time of entering into it. That is bothers you is not our concern ("we don't care").

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 10:56 AM  

"Shouldn't we all be digging ourselves bunkers or something?"

I suggest you concentrate on "or something."

If I want you out of your bunker, I'll have you out. If I can't find you, I'll turn my attention to those I can find.

Blogger Cluttermonkey April 27, 2015 11:00 AM  

- where i'd disagree is the assertion, implied or explicit, that marriage is any kind of blanket consent to anything.

So would that, in your opinion, mean you would need a separate contract to live together, share a house, or share assets? Does that mean I can walk away from my wife and claim I never consented or even revoke consent to any financial obligation?

Frankly, you seem to be disagreeing with reality. There wouldn't be any point to a marriage if it didn't provide any right or privilege to the body, assets, labour or immaterial goods such as love. Marriage is a contract. A God given contract, but still a contract. And no contract is a one-way street where you can take or refuse when you feel like it.

1 Corinthians 7:4: The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

Seems pretty straight forward, right?

And even if you're an atheist, or anything else, the legal precedent not only in the Anglosphere with it's Common Law or anywhere else in the world, is that consent to sex (the kind used for procreation, mind you, as there are other words and legal definitions for practically every perversion and this doesn't pertain to them) is an integral part and defining characteristic of the marriage contract.

It really is up for debate if you can introduce a "marital rape" law to in practice negate all the existing marriage contracts in a country or state.

Anonymous Roundtine April 27, 2015 11:06 AM  

When leftists think someone is stupid, they really do think less of them. I think this is part of the reason why some folks on the HBD side think the progressives are going to turn into actual racists in a few decades. Conservatives and Christians have opposed eugenics, and people like Palin don't abort their Downs babies. When they say "we" can't talk about race and IQ openly because it will lead to bad things, they're not talking about trailer trash, they're talking about themselves. They literally do not understand how we think.

Blogger Gunnar von Cowtown April 27, 2015 11:10 AM  

"For the record, Vox was correct about the common law."

Absolutely. However, after watching that interview, I'm not entirely sure that Pakman really knows what English Common Law is, much less how influential it was to American/Western legal systems.

Which segues nicely to the next point.
"Vox is so far ahead that it seems to stump him that someone isn't making the same logical jumps as quickly as he does -- having to explain every step is very annoying."

It may be very annoying, but it probably makes for better dialectic. Case in point, Pakman was trying so hard to "GOTCHA!" Vox on whether homosexuality was a birth defect that he made a very silly false equivalency with left-handedness. Pakman either didn't understand, or refused to understand, that the habit of shooting one's load into other dudes instead of women greatly reduces the likelihood that one will reproduce. Writing with one's left hand..... not so much.

Vox, I really hope you do more interviews like these. You're very good, and I don't think that interview could have gone better. The deck was stacked against you, and you still managed to tool Pakman repeatedly. (The quip at 39:00 about vaccine studies was my favorite.) If the goal is to sway fence-sitters, a little more step-by-step would help clarify your views to the unfamiliar while simultaneously exposing your opponents as either ignorant or dishonest.

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 11:16 AM  

If the goal is to sway fence-sitters, a little more step-by-step would help clarify your views to the unfamiliar while simultaneously exposing your opponents as either ignorant or dishonest.

I would agree, even though I wish to not come off as being some sort of "media advisor" or concern troll.

Rather, I'd liken it as a simple statistics that the fence-sitters that (I thought) you were intending to sway with the interview are most likely less intelligent and not able to make those logical jumps so quickly.

The curse of the intelligent, I'd say.

Anonymous Eric Ashley April 27, 2015 11:18 AM  

Martin's first GOT book had me saying to myself 'oh no, he's not going to do that stupid thing', and then he does it. Later, he goes in for exibistionistic sex to fanservice the readers with a fourteen year old virgin.

I resisted the urge to throw the book at the wall. I think. It was a long time ago.

And now, supposedly he's gotten worse.

And some person has labelled him the American Tolkien.

......after repeated experiments, I have verified that you can break a brick wall by beating your head against it.

Please, people. There are so many better fantasy writers than Martin out there.

Blogger Cluttermonkey April 27, 2015 11:18 AM  

[...] even though I wish to not come off as being some sort of "media advisor" or concern troll.

Obvious troll is obvious. Trying to hide in plain sight.

/s

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 11:20 AM  

Obvious troll is obvious. Trying to hide in plain sight.

And I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids, and that rabid puppy too!

Blogger Chiva April 27, 2015 11:20 AM  

" I think this is part of the reason why some folks on the HBD side think the progressives are going to turn into actual racists in a few decades"

I think the progressives are racists today. The amount of passive racism in Silicon Valley is astounding.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 11:20 AM  

"It may be very annoying, but it probably makes for better dialectic. "

The problem is that with some people it can take frickin' years. of spoon feeding them basics before you can make it back to the actual point. A debate is not the proper venue for providing a basic education.

And that's assuming they actually want to understand.

Anonymous Steve April 27, 2015 11:23 AM  

Aziz Poonawalla - where i'd disagree is the assertion, implied or explicit, that marriage is any kind of blanket consent to anything

Really?

I'm guessing from your name that you don't come from the Western Christian tradition Aziz (apologies if I've misunderstood) but we've tended to believe that marriage does indeed come with mutual obligations - it may be different for other religious and ethnic groups. Voluntarily agreeing to marital obligations is the same thing as blanket consent to certain things, such as:

* to have and to hold
* in sickness, and in health
* for richer, and poorer
* until death do us part

You don't know when you marry someone if they're going to win the lottery or become a shirtless bum drinking Thunderbird under a bridge, but you sign up for the duration. (Whether you go the distance in these days of easy divorce is, of course, a different matter).

And we've always understood that marriage obliges people to have sex with each other, or else the marriage is off. Refusal to consummate a marriage or withdrawal of sexual contact has long, long, long, been grounds for annulment or divorce.

Now, that doesn't mean you necessarily get to jump your wife's bones (or vice versa) whenever you feel like it. But it does mean that consent to sexual relations - in general - is part of the package deal that is marriage.

For my tuppence worth, men who beat up or mentally torture their wives and force themselves on them belong in jail. But rape in general is a tricky charge to prosecute, and martial rape in particular was a politically motivated judicial intrusion into the marital bed that we may one day regret.

I saw in the news recently that a 78 year old man was dragged through the courts on the charge of "raping" his 78 year old wife because he had sex with her while she had Alzheimer's. He was acquitted, but shouldn't the fact that American prosecutors had a geriatric arrested just days after his wife died, and put him through a ridiculous trial at great public expense, give us some pause about this whole "marital rape" concept and how it might be abused by malicious and politically motivated authorities?

What's next? Men being arrested for shagging their wives after they both got drunk at a party?

Blogger Cluttermonkey April 27, 2015 11:24 AM  

And that's assuming they actually want to understand.

But it doesn't make me feel good...

Blogger Russell April 27, 2015 11:26 AM  

VD: "Of course, it wasn't a debate, it was an interview. An interview about GamerGate and the game industry."

This. This needs to be said, again. Most of the armchair interviewing have started the critique out with the mistaken idea that this was a debate.

It was supposed to be an interview. Pakman turned in into a debate with him as judge, prosecutor and jury, to an defendant that was neither told he was going to be on trail nor had time to prepare a defense.

The biggest tell was when Pakman said he agreed with one of Vox's positions. What the? Since when did it matter if the interviewer agreed with the interviewee? Because it wasn't an interview, though it was pitched as such.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 11:33 AM  

I think the progressives are racists today. The amount of passive racism in Silicon Valley is astounding.

Progressives also live in some of the whitest communities in the country.

Blogger Cluttermonkey April 27, 2015 11:34 AM  

The biggest tell was when Pakman said he agreed with one of Vox's positions. What the? Since when did it matter if the interviewer agreed with the interviewee? Because it wasn't an interview, though it was pitched as such.

Excellent point. At the end it became very obvious that this was about generating outrage that Vox is guilty of badthink and making Gamer Gate guilty by association, or demoralising and turning "moderates" around.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 11:36 AM  

"Because it wasn't an interview, though it was pitched as such."

Rabbits almost always pitch it as an interview. They almost never conduct it as one. They always lie.

Anonymous Gecko April 27, 2015 11:38 AM  

I actually believe that Martin is intentionally writing sadistically of Westeros so that he can finish up with an attempt at eucatastrophe. There is sufficient evidence that, at least once upon a time, this is what he intended. One of the many problems, however: by that time nobody will feel Westeros is worth saving. It only works if your readers actually give two shits about the world you've built.

Anonymous Alexander April 27, 2015 11:51 AM  

Tangentially on topic: just got my ballot to vote on site-selection for 2017 world con. See you all in Helsinki!

Blogger Cluttermonkey April 27, 2015 11:54 AM  

Rabbits almost always pitch it as an interview. They almost never conduct it as one. They always lie.

That's because they deep down know their ideas are inferior and have to carefully present the Narrative. They are obsessed with the Narrative, because they fear the truth and letting any thought stand on it's merits.

Of course, an "interview" by rabbits is an exercise in putting the badthinker in, to their minds, as bad a light as possible. The badthinker, his badthink thus exposed, is DISQUALIFIED.

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 27, 2015 11:59 AM  

Martin has produced ... the great fantasy epic of our era. It's an epic for a more profane, more jaded, more ambivalent age than the one Tolkien lived in.

Worth $40 by itself was getting to post on a site with lots of GRRMs fans commenting that if they want to find out where GOT is going to look at The War of the Roses and convert it into fantasy, & that the dwarf who pays for sex will marry the blond dragon lady.

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water. I highly recommend that you review the information on genetics before you try to defend that POV, Vox.

Sickle cell is probably the easiest way to get leftists to understand evolution doesn't always mean better. Sickle Cell was thought to refute survival of the fittest until it was discovered it helped blacks survive malaria, without quinine that whitey brought to Africa. One out of 10 US blacks has sickle cell and it has many health disadvantages. If they inherit the trait from only one parent 40% of their RBCs are sickle, if they inherit from both they could die just from taking a ride in a small plane or if they are obese like Eric Garner from being placed prone(on his belly). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1273254/ If studies filtered out sickle cell PTs, a big chunk of the blacks vs. everyone else health gap would disappear. Before whitey brought quinine to Africa Sickle Cells one benefit would be worth losing 30 avg IQ points.

with "If I said Blacks were better basketball players than whites would you disagree?"

A far better example would be the Olympics. Blacks win the short distance run events but not much else. Upper body strength, coordination & swimming events blacks are at junior high level. Unlike pro sports the Olympics does drug testing so you can't sit in a vat of hormones all offseason.

"Shouldn't we all be digging ourselves bunkers or something?" Its a lot easier to pay someone with heavy equipment to do that than do it yourself. Although if you are burying catches you certainly want to do that yourself or with people you trust, tis not the job for illegal aliens from home depot.

Anonymous clk April 27, 2015 11:59 AM  

If I wanted to get the most up to date informaton on human races, sub species ect such as VD talks about here .. where wouold I go ?.. could someone point me to a website, text book, paper etc on the subject ... I know in the past when asked these questions people say just he web but the web is full of crazy people with crazy agendas ... I need a good solid recommedation of a discussion of the actual science with out any secret agendas

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 12:04 PM  

A far better example would be the Olympics. Blacks win the short distance run events but not much else.

They also win the long distance runs.

Unlike pro sports the Olympics does drug testing so you can't sit in a vat of hormones all offseason.

Right...

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 12:14 PM  

"That's because they deep down know . . ."

. . . they are prey animals. They survive by subterfuge and flight. Even their apparent aggressiveness is subterfuge, like that of the puffer fish, or moth with eye spots on its wings.

When backed into a corner they will fight, but they do so as a panicked wee beasty.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 12:16 PM  

"They also win the long distance runs."

Blacks do not win the long distance runs. The Kalenjin do.

Anonymous BigGaySteve April 27, 2015 12:16 PM  

They also win the long distance runs.

They have completion on the long distance runs & endurance events. Short distance runs 1st,2nd,3rd place are sure bets to be black.
Think of all Nobel Prizes except for Peace & Literature as the white/asian version of short distance runs. The only black to win there was for Keynesian economics which Argentina Zimbabwe & Weimar disproved.

Anonymous BoysMom April 27, 2015 12:20 PM  

Stingray, that was very helpful to me. Intelligence indicates superiority--that explains why they think career academics are superior, why disabled children should be killed before birth, so many things. I've always gotten stuck at the idea that an individual's traits are identical to the group they're identified with (especially with black, where they've decided that one black ancestor makes a person black, even if they're seven/eighths white).

Totally off this topic, Ilk, the brother of a member of our Church is a pastor and a political prisoner in Congo/Zaire. This last week he baptized sixty fellow prisoners. Would you pray for him, his family, and all these new Christians, please?

Blogger ajw308 April 27, 2015 12:22 PM  

Isn't one of the defining traits of a midwit their tendency to overstate facts and stretch the truth to support their position (or the position of their warren) or their status as 'the smart guy who knows so much'?

Pakman did this with his statement about marital rape being illegal in all 50 states (57 for the Barry fans). Sounds believable, right? Doesn't mean it is. Thanks Joe Doakes for your research.

Anonymous FP April 27, 2015 12:25 PM  

" where i'd disagree is the assertion, implied or explicit, that marriage is any kind of blanket consent to anything."

Thanks Aziz for the chuckle this morning. This type of statement often reminds me of the wedding scene from The Princess Bride. "Mwarriage is about wuv, twoo wuv."

BuckIe up buttercup but marriage law is such blanket consent that you're on the hook for her debts and vice versa. She spends $50k on shoes to impersonate Imelda, that debt is half yours. If she has 75k in college debt, you're now liable for half that.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 12:26 PM  

5000 m

Look at the list of Olympic medalists.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 12:27 PM  

10000 m

Anonymous patrick kelly April 27, 2015 12:30 PM  

Vox, you are one scary lookin' mofo.... I say that from experience with the few bad asses I've seen in action in person (relative to all people I've met).

Bald/shaved head - check
Voice...calm, higher pitched than expected (not Vader)...
Carry a lil' extra weight (other's were much pudgier,not trying to insult or dig at you).
Something about the face...it's there...can't really describe what I mean...you know it when you see it.....and it stares back at you......not necessarily evil, just intense...

Seen these guys move much quicker around a dojo or ring much quicker than you would expect, demonstrating surprising dexterity and flexibility....

Anonymous patrick kelly April 27, 2015 12:31 PM  

@ Wheeler: "demonstrated their tolerance and diversity by banning me from his site."

See, the ilk are so tolerant they let Wheeler hang around.....

Anonymous Stingray April 27, 2015 12:34 PM  

Something about the face...it's there...can't really describe what I mean...you know it when you see it.....and it stares back at you......not necessarily evil, just intense…]

Thousand yard stare.

It's why women won't have sex with him.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 27, 2015 12:40 PM  

"we will avoid economics despite it being one of my specialties."

Could you avoid sorcery and alchemy and rain-dancing too, if they are also among your........ specialties?

I find it rather fascinating that you are a guy who consistently stands up pretty heroically for the value of logic, but you also somehow still think that "economics" is something other than steam coming out of a witch's cauldron. I mean, after all, the witch knew how to light a fire and heat a cauldron, so it's not like what she did is completely insubstantial, but the value she assigns to the steam might be a little........ mistaken.

I truly admire your commitment to logic, although speaking as a mystic, a believer in paradoxes, I see a few problematical things around the edges. But who cares, that's neither here nor there, since we can't argue the toss using the same vocabulary, or even the same grammar.

In general I wish you well in the scope of your vision. But...... economics? If I told you that poetry is not an art but a science, would you believe me? What if I said something bizarre about the alleged objectivity of the art of piano-playing? Sometimes these things can be larfed at from differing perspectives ("Now go away, or I shall mock you a SECOND time!"), sometimes you can have a drink over them and chuckle, and sometimes you just have to admit that the world is large.

And....... the world IS large.

Anonymous Sevron April 27, 2015 12:40 PM  

Highly telling Puff hasn't showed up.

Anonymous Stingray April 27, 2015 12:40 PM  

BoysMom,

I'm glad it helped. Tangentially, it's related to how feminists actually hate women because they hold superior everything masculine and inferior everything feminine.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 12:41 PM  

Dear Vox:

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water.

I recommend you review your logic. You're completely wrong.

No I am not. I'm using the facts of good sound biological science. I really am, my friend.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 12:42 PM  

"Carry a lil' extra weight . . ."

It reduces speed, but it enhances strength. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 12:48 PM  

"I'm using the facts of good sound biological science. I really am, my friend."

How's that Mbutu basketball team working out for you?

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 12:53 PM  

If I wanted to get the most up to date informaton on human races, sub species ect such as VD talks about here .. where wouold I go ?.. could someone point me to a website, text book, paper etc on the subject ... I know in the past when asked these questions people say just he web but the web is full of crazy people with crazy agendas ... I need a good solid recommedation of a discussion of the actual science with out any secret agendas

Steve Sailer, Razib Khan, Jay Man.

Blogger Nikis-Knight April 27, 2015 12:54 PM  

The problem was, he had no reference for "common law". He assumed it meant "the law most commonly found" so he cited "most US states" as if that refuted you, not knowing that common law has a historical meaning.

If you had noticed his confusion, one possible response would have been "Wait, do you think that Common Law means the law in most places? You aren't aware that I was referring to the legal tradition that Anglo-Saxon laws were based on before modern progressives began basing them on their most recent fad or fancy? Maybe you should google that term when you get a chance then we can resume our conversation on roughly equal footing."

(Heh, but I am NOT saying I would have thought of that in the moment either.)

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 12:54 PM  

@Guest
"No I am not. I'm using the facts of good sound biological science. I really am, my friend."

No, you're asserting that you could. Not the same thing.
You assert that you can make a slam-dunk, no-possible-objections demonstration that there is no inequality between the races. SStop asserting, make your f'ing argument.

And don't be surprised that the people here who disagree with you have heard it already hundreds of times before and don't even have to furrow their brows to demonstrate its stupidity.

Because much like feminism, the idiocy of racial equality is one of the dogmas of our time, and they've had to form their opinions and defend them in a climate that is overwhelmingly hostile.

Human equality is a purely theological construct. It cannot be defended on any other basis, and only has meaning on the moral/spiritual plane. Atheists in particular have no business trying to defend it.

Anonymous patrick kelly April 27, 2015 12:56 PM  

"not all "races" are genetically equal"

Another case of depending on what is is....
.. in this case defining "genetically" or "equal"...

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 12:58 PM  

On the most basic level, "genetic equality" is an awful argument because of the word "equality" and how mutable it is.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 1:08 PM  

Bald/shaved head - check
Voice...calm, higher pitched than expected (not Vader)...
Carry a lil' extra weight (other's were much pudgier,not trying to insult or dig at you).
Something about the face...it's there...can't really describe what I mean...you know it when you see it.....and it stares back at you......not necessarily evil, just intense...

Seen these guys move much quicker around a dojo or ring much quicker than you would expect, demonstrating surprising dexterity and flexibility....


I find it mildly amusing that a few folks seemed to think I was a butterball. I just threw up 6 reps at 275 today no problem, despite going light for the last nine months due to a questionable shoulder. Right now I weigh 192 and I should be 185. 180 would be ripped.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 1:10 PM  


No I am not. I'm using the facts of good sound biological science. I really am, my friend.


You haven't stated a single fact. And your logic is observably wrong. Either put up so we can put your case down or go away.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:13 PM  

I just threw up 6 reps at 275 today no problem, despite going light for the last nine months due to a questionable shoulder. Right now I weigh 192

Per strstd, that puts your estimated 1rm at 334, which is very close to the elite level (354) for men your weight.

And that doesn't take your age into account.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 27, 2015 1:13 PM  

@ Student in Blue: "genetic equality" is an awful argument because of the word "equality" and how mutable it is."

Nice point. Somewhere, Wittgenstein is applauding you. Not sure if you have a taste for Wittgenstein's applause, but you'll get it all the same.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian April 27, 2015 1:29 PM  


Per strstd, that puts your estimated 1rm at 334, which is very close to the elite level (354) for men your weight.


Bro, three plates on each side minimum.

Do you even lift?

Anonymous patrick kelly April 27, 2015 1:35 PM  

@Vox: "I find it mildly amusing that a few folks seemed to think I was a butterball"

Heh,.. just comparing you to another photo when you were ripped. You were accused of photo-shopping that one. Hatez gonna hate...

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 27, 2015 1:36 PM  

First of all, what do any of those claims have to do with my contention that you're a baiting troll who hides behind the technically-accurate but interpretation of an inflammatory claim intended to rile up your targets? Anyone who wants to know what I actually claimed about you can read my posts in the Pakman post. You can point exactly to where I said you were a "soft target", right? Or can you? Aren't there supposed to be some rules here about that?

So why don't you point to where I said you were a "soft target" and where I challenged you to debate on any of those topics? I don't debate on things I don't have a deep knowledge of, and I don't think that's a cowardly position. It would be foolish to do so. I made some specific claims there about you, which anyone can read if they're so inclined. What do any of the debate topics you listed have to do with the claims I made?

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 1:39 PM  

@Puff,
Because you're a faggot.

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 27, 2015 1:40 PM  

By the way, even Markku admitted that what I said was true about your tactics, maybe you should call him out to debate totally unrelated topics as well.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 1:41 PM  

Puff,

What's your current 1rm for the big four lifts?

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 1:49 PM  

@Puff,
Seriously, mischaracterizing what he man is saying is just dishonest. As a dishonest interlocutor, don't expect much respect around here.

That said, if you don't like VD's suggestions for a debate, provide your own. Maybe something like "Vox is the worst person in the world" or It's not dishonest when I do it."

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 1:55 PM  

@scoobius dubious

I am unfamiliar with Wittgenstein's work. I was basing what I said more from van Creveld's Equality, which was a very good read.

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 27, 2015 2:04 PM  

Seriously, mischaracterizing what he man is saying is just dishonest. As a dishonest interlocutor, don't expect much respect around here.

Am I supposed to be eager for your respect? You can read exactly what Markku himself wrote. He admitted that at least "sometimes" Vox baits his targets then hides behind a technical non-normative interpretation to win arguments. I think it's more than "sometimes".

That said, if you don't like VD's suggestions for a debate, provide your own. Maybe something like "Vox is the worst person in the world" or It's not dishonest when I do it."

It's not dishonest if you call it what it is. Letting people believe you're interested in honest debate while engaging in bait and switch tactics and mischaracterizing your actual positions in order to inflame your targets and get more attention, is. Vox can call himself honest as soon as he admits he's a baiting troll trying to get more attention than clearly stating his actual positions in detail would garner.

Blogger John Wright April 27, 2015 2:09 PM  

Your interviewer is more mistaken than he knows. There are, in all fifty states, some form of 'Marriage rape law' which clarifies the common law understanding that battery or assault or sexual assault are not permitted between husband and wife, but in only 17 states is there actually a law defining 'consent' by a wife the same as 'consent' by a non-wife, in effect, making the crime of rape the same for both.

In other words, there are 17 states that actually have what a lawyer would call a law against Marital Rape. In all other states, the common law is followed, with some nuances and modification, and a man cannot rape his wife, because the marriage oath is consent to sex.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 2:11 PM  

Dear Danby, (And Vox)

I mean neither of you any harm. So let's begin with this scenario:

“I assert that an unborn female black child with a missing chromosome and an inclination to homosexuality is equal in human value and human dignity and unalienable, God-given rights to a straight white male in the prime of his life and a +4 SD IQ. How many of my dishonest critics will do the same?

That is an elegant example of God's word, by the way. I certainly cannot hate anyone who looks at all humans as being equal in God's eyes. But let's have a look at whether or not it proves that one race is unequal to another.

In this scenario, there is one 4+ SD on the IQ bell curve. Wow! That is pretty smart! and a small black female with (I assume) Turner's syndrome aka 45,X. Unfortunately, there are some problems with using the Turner's example. These unfortunate young women have average to high intelligence. The clinical symptoms are rotated ears, neck webbing, edema of hands and feet. Some but not all are short. There are variable dysmorphic facial features, and congenital heart defects. But alas for our example, no change in intelligence quotient.

Another problem with this example is that Turner's is not inherited. It's known as a chromosomal aneuploidy. It is acquired by some other means besides Mendelian inheritance--like Trisomy 21, in which the chances increase with the age of the mother. The other problem with using this example is that it occurs in every race, not merely one, and the young women afflicted by this, can not reproduce.

So we are going to have to use another example. Let's take this same white 4+ (Wow! That's pretty smart!) male and attach him to a young black woman with Trisomy 21 This is actually an increase of genetic material aka 47,XX (Which also is not inherited, and which also is not restrained to just one race)

Ah, young love! I just love romances! And just like every other Christian couple (They WILL be married) this young couple fall in love, just like the movies and make their vows before God.

In that case, allele, by allele, chromosome by chromosome, Mendelian inheritance occurs between the couple. 50% of females with Down's syndrome are fertile. Of these offspring, there is a 35-50% chance of passing on the trisomy 21

White and black couples do not create a new species. Allele by allele, black and whites share exactly the same genotypes. There isn't a hint of speciation. If you claim that you know of any, I would be more than happy to take a look at that. But I am unaware of any speciation between the genomes of blacks and whites.

Add to that the reality of immigration of mankind on earth. Even if you don't believe the bible. I'm used to arguing with Atheists, and even if you don't believe one single word out of the bible, the Babylonian conquest of the ancient world is a historical fact. The Babylonians took people from their conquered nations and exiled them to other places, as a strategical act of war and power. The Greeks also invaded Europe and the far east, and intermarried. The Huns invaded ancient Rome, as did the Celts, and intermarried with the Romans. That is historical. I'm not relying on scripture for this. I'm not bantering Ken Ham dogma to prove my point. This is a historical reality. During the middle ages and beyond, Moor sailors and merchants traveled through Europe and left their DNA behind when they set sail the next day. In every single immigration event, humans proved themselves to be genetically interchangeable in regards to the genomic library. The fact that this proves the Genesis account of creation is besides the fact.

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 2:12 PM  

@puffthemagicdragon

So, you gonna provide your own suggestions anytime soon?

Blogger John Wright April 27, 2015 2:14 PM  

"regardless of the answer to my question - where i'd disagree is the assertion, implied or explicit, that marriage is any kind of blanket consent to anything."

Are you familiar with family law?

Do you know what a marriage oath is?

What does the wording include?

How have all courts of laws dating back to the Roman Empire interpret such oaths?

To what is the maiden consenting when she consents to become a man's wife?

What is the basic, essential difference between a maiden and a wife?

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 2:18 PM  

Dear Danby, (And Vox)

I mean neither of you any harm. So let's begin with this scenario:

“I assert that an unborn female black child with a missing chromosome and an inclination to homosexuality is equal in human value and human dignity and unalienable, God-given rights to a straight white male in the prime of his life and a +4 SD IQ. How many of my dishonest critics will do the same?

That is an elegant example of God's word, by the way. I certainly cannot hate anyone who looks at all humans as being equal in God's eyes. But let's have a look at whether or not it proves that one race is unequal to another.

In this scenario, there is one 4+ SD on the IQ bell curve. Wow! That is pretty smart! and a small black female with (I assume) Turner's syndrome aka 45,X. Unfortunately, there are some problems with using the Turner's example. These unfortunate young women have average to high intelligence. The clinical symptoms are rotated ears, neck webbing, edema of hands and feet. Some but not all are short. There are variable dysmorphic facial features, and congenital heart defects. But alas for our example, no change in intelligence quotient.

Another problem with this example is that Turner's is not inherited. It's known as a chromosomal aneuploidy. It is acquired by some other means besides Mendelian inheritance--like Trisomy 21, in which the chances increase with the age of the mother. The other problem with using this example is that it occurs in every race, not merely one, and the young women afflicted by this, can not reproduce.

So we are going to have to use another example. Let's take this same white 4+ (Wow! That's pretty smart!) male and attach him to a young black woman with Trisomy 21 This is actually an increase of genetic material aka 47,XX (Which also is not inherited, and which also is not restrained to just one race)

Ah, young love! I just love romances! And just like every other Christian couple (They WILL be married) this young couple fall in love, just like the movies and make their vows before God.

In that case, allele, by allele, chromosome by chromosome, Mendelian inheritance occurs between the couple. 50% of females with Down's syndrome are fertile. Of these offspring, there is a 35-50% chance of passing on the trisomy 21

White and black couples do not create a new species. Allele by allele, black and whites share exactly the same genotypes. There isn't a hint of speciation. If you claim that you know of any, I would be more than happy to take a look at that. But I am unaware of any speciation between the genomes of blacks and whites.

Add to that the reality of immigration of mankind on earth. Even if you don't believe the bible. I'm used to arguing with Atheists, and even if you don't believe one single word out of the bible, the Babylonian conquest of the ancient world is a historical fact. The Babylonians took people from their conquered nations and exiled them to other places, as a strategical act of war and power. The Greeks also invaded Europe and the far east, and intermarried. The Huns invaded ancient Rome, as did the Celts, and intermarried with the Romans. That is historical. I'm not relying on scripture for this. I'm not bantering Ken Ham dogma to prove my point. This is a historical reality. During the middle ages and beyond, Moor sailors and merchants traveled through Europe and left their DNA behind when they set sail the next day. In every single immigration event, humans proved themselves to be genetically interchangeable in regards to the genomic library. The fact that this proves the Genesis account of creation is besides the fact.

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 2:22 PM  

@Puffy
"Letting people believe you're interested in honest debate while engaging in bait and switch tactics and mischaracterizing your actual positions in order to inflame your targets and get more attention, is.

As opposed to leading people to believe you're interested in honest debate and then refusing to debate.... Gotcha Champ.

What Vox is doing is not dishonest, nore is a bait and switch, nor is he mischaracterizing his positions. What Vox is doing is setting a rhetorical trap. He uses specific words that will trigger spastics and the skim-until-offended crown to misunderstand what he says because they stop reading and stop thinking when they see the word.
Anyone who can read a full sentence from end to the other and who reads his statements in context will not be mislead by what he's saying. People like you who are looking for a reason to disqualify without engaging the argument are fundamentally unable to read beyond the trigger, rendering yourself unable to address his actual statements.

So which is it? Do you react like a panicked monkey at the sight of certain trigger words, or are you just using any excuse to try to disqualify him?

Or both?

Anonymous FrankNorman April 27, 2015 2:23 PM  

kfg April 27, 2015 10:56 AM

"Shouldn't we all be digging ourselves bunkers or something?"

I suggest you concentrate on "or something."

If I want you out of your bunker, I'll have you out. If I can't find you, I'll turn my attention to those I can find.


Not if you're already dead from a nuclear blast.
And if that's where things are going, the Rabbits and SJW's won't be with us when its all over.

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 2:25 PM  

@guest

Uh... a race is not a species. There's a reason why the two terms are separate.

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 2:35 PM  

@guest,
Your stories are nice, but STFW? No one is contending that speciation occurs. Your thinking is muddled in the extreme. What is your thesis? A short one-sentence statement of what your are proposing?

Vox's thesis, if I may make so bold as to paraphrase, is that races are inherently unequal in differing ways. That is, that, say the Bantu are unequal to the Pygmy in height. That West Africans are unequal to Western Europeans in the number of "short twitch" muscle fibres, that East Asians are unequal to Aborigines in eyelid mass.

You are contending that this is not so. I can imagine several arguments one might make, but let's hear what yours is.

Forget the +4 SD individual (I'm only +3) and the birth defective Black child (my daughter with Downs is not Black), they were only used as an example of extreme genetic divergence. In what way am I equal to you genetically?

I have a genetic disposition to extremely elastic and flexible ligaments. I this way you are very likely not my equal.
I will bet that you and I are not genetically equal in a great many areas. Height, eye color, pain tolerance,etc.

Please demonstrate how this is not true.

Blogger Markku April 27, 2015 2:37 PM  

You can read exactly what Markku himself wrote. He admitted that at least "sometimes" Vox baits his targets then hides behind a technical non-normative interpretation to win arguments. I think it's more than "sometimes".

I didn't say "hides". You called it "bait and switch" and after some thought, I agreed to that. The provocative form of the (sometimes incomplete) truth is a bait. Then it may be switched to a more complete understanding of the truth if you know what to ask, or else read between the lines like the regulars can. We usually don't need to ask.

However, "hides" would imply that Vox's response to the question isn't, in fact, his actual position on the issue. So, I will not agree to hiding. To bait and switch, I will agree.

Blogger Markku April 27, 2015 2:50 PM  

An example we discussed was the title of the book The Irrational Atheist. Although Vox explains the title in the preface, what are the chances that the average person wouldn't assume the title to mean "atheists are irrational"? Slim to none. So, is the title a bait and the preface a switch? I wouldn't call that unreasonable. Of course, this is not to say I have anything against it - it is always funny to see atheists rage.

Blogger Josh April 27, 2015 2:52 PM  

So markku, Vox was engaging in click bait before it was cool?

That would make vox a hipster.

Which is funny.

Blogger Markku April 27, 2015 2:54 PM  

I would think so, yes. About a decade earlier would be my gut feeling.

Blogger Markku April 27, 2015 3:00 PM  

Puffy was probably played for a chump earlier, and now he/she is all enraged. Funny, but understandable.

Blogger D. Lane April 27, 2015 3:00 PM  

Guest,

To blow something out of the water, you have to actually shoot at it. At the very least, you have to aim your cannon in the same general direction of your target.

Vox stated that racial groups are not genetically equal. This is exactly the same as stating that not all numbers are equal. That 4 + 2 + 7 can be performed in a given order and still result in a prime number has bugger all to do with demonstrating how 11 > 6 is false.

Focus, man!

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 3:01 PM  

"Not if you're already dead from a nuclear blast."

Be cheaper and easier to take out with a bullet. Damn mosquitoes go everywhere though.

Blogger 1sexistpig2another April 27, 2015 3:50 PM  

Of course, you only have to go to a Costco in a state with blacks and Asians and notice that the black kids have robust bodies with smallish heads and the East Asian kids have dinky little bodies with enormous heads ...

So is one a racist for noticing or for pointing it out?

Blogger Markku April 27, 2015 3:52 PM  

It's a hatefact, so you kind of contract racism nebulously, from proximity to it.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 4:00 PM  

To student in blue: There is only one race. Period.

To Danby: I'm not familiar with the term STFW. Otherwise, your return was nicely courteous and I thank you for that. My short answer is that there is only one race.

Genetically we are different for all sorts of reasons. But not because of race. I don't have any text books at home I can refer to in regards to race and fast-twitch muscles. I could locate some professional journals but it would take me a moment or two.

So I find it interesting that you note that West Africans have more fast-twitch muscles, the Negroid race, in contrast to West Europeans, which, by that I assume you mean the Caucasian race. Why didn't you contrast the West Africans with the East Africans? Or the Africans of the Central African Republic?

Based on what I have been reading in the last half hour or so, online, if you can trust such sources which I've read, there is as much variation between the populations of these nations, all of which you would call the Negroid race, as there is between your example of West Europeans and West Africans.

To Vox Day: How do you get the word in bold?

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 4:13 PM  

" . . . there is as much variation between the populations of these nations, all of which you would call the Negroid race . . ."

I have referred to specific African tribes, not Negroids, for a reason.

I could also point out that Irish-Danes would be at a certain disadvantage to the Maasai as daytime hunters of the Serengeti.

Is it your position that this disadvantage doesn't exist, or is it your position that the disadvantage lacks a group genetic component?

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 4:18 PM  

So you are denying the existence of race because you can sufficiently muddy the question so that you are not required to see it.

Interesting approach.

It seems to me that you are confused on the issue because you do not actually have a working definition of race. You are confusing at once with both the concept of species and with unrelated concepts such as similarity of genome.

For the purposes of discussion, I would propose this
A race is a group of persons of common descent, identifiable by a large cluster of heritable traits. A sub-race is a subset of a race, again a group of common descent, that exhibit a smaller group of heritable traits.
So Africans are a different race from Caucasians, which are again separate from East Asians, are separate from South Asians are separate from Aborigines. And West Africans are a different sub-race of Africans from East Africans. Western Europeans are a separate sub-race of Caucasians from Slavs or Balkans.

None of this is new, it's the convention understanding of race, and has been for centuries.

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 4:31 PM  

@guest

You're using the term "race" when you mean "species".

"There is only one (human) species. Period."

The entire point of "species" as a word is to connotate a group of beings that can interbreed.

Whereas "race" can in fact refer to the entirety of a species ("the human race"), it can also just as accurately refer to a subsect of a species.

The first definition of race, from the Random House Dictionary, "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." Hence, you have "the human race" because of relation by common descent.

But this also applies to smaller, more concise groups. The Native American race. They are a group of persons who were related by a common descent or heredity that the European colonists populating the Americas did not. They didn't have the same set of genes that the Native Americans did that described the skin color, intolerance to alcohol, and various other phenotypes.

Consider the rural man who bellyaches that city-slickers are "a race apart from us good folk". It's not that he's saying they're inhuman, he's saying they're practically a different culture, a different nation, a different kind of person altogether.

You are pigeonholing the term "race" into meaning species, when in everyday usage they are separate terms that only sometimes overlaps.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 4:33 PM  

To KFG: I wasn't responding to you. I have no idea what you are talking about because I haven't read what you have written.

To Danby; Sir, I am not denying the existence of race by muddying the water. If we want to talk about anyone muddying the water it is the one who grouped 45,X with a racial group. As you yourself at least indicated that you agreed that cytogenetic abnormalities were not attached to any specific race.

As for the purpose of discussion, let's start with this. There is no biological term:"sub-race"

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 4:39 PM  

"I wasn't responding to you."

I am well aware of that. I believe everyone else is as well, and that at least most of them can discern why.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 4:48 PM  

Are there biological concepts for the terms, "environmental pressure," "breeding group," and "frequency of alleles within a breeding group"?

Or do you intend to just toss evolution to set up your private winning conditions?

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 4:56 PM  

@Guest
Vox did not mention 45,X, you did.
Vox was setting up his argument. Before you can usefully talk about race, you have to acknowledge that there are genetic differences between people. Amazingly, there are many who deny this very fact. So before we can even get there, we have to start from 0, as in "some people are boys, and some are girls. The difference is in their chromosomes." and work up from there. Because some people are not only ignorant, they will deny what is front of their face if it contradicts their indoctrination.

And yes, you are muddying the water. It's pretty much all you have done. Please don't divert onto a tangent again. This discussion will not be able to go anywhere if you keep doing that.

I have proposed my definition of race, which, as I said, is the common understanding of the subject for centuries. If you do not like it, please propose your own.

What is your definition of race?

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 5:06 PM  

To Student in blue:

I don't know what religion you are. In any case, I am prepared to argue the concept of race both biologically or biblically. Either/Or

Biblically, your definition of race:

"a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." Hence, you have "the human race" because of relation by common descent."

Is dead on.

We are all descendants of Adam and Eve. One Couple. The woman was called Eve because she was the mother of all living.

Biologically, we don't use the term race. There is one species of man. Homo sapiens sapiens.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 27, 2015 5:07 PM  

@ student in blue: "I am unfamiliar with Wittgenstein's work. I was basing what I said more from van Creveld's Equality, which was a very good read."

Bet it is a good read. The thing is, as I understand it, is that a fellow like van Creveld's work is work of practical and scholarly analysis (which is not at all to undervalue it in any way, be sure; I'm reliably told it's brilliant stuff, and I have no reason to think otherwise). But...... Wittgenstein is philosophy. (And also, partly an amateurish but nevertheless rather useful species of linguistics.) Different kettle of fish, but no matter where you got the right point, you got it all the same. Cheers for that.

Second thing in your continuing education, Meister Etudiant, would be understanding genealogies. For instance, do you think van Creveld has no idea who Wittgenstein was? Whom do you think Wittgenstein considered his forbears? (His ideas were influential, to be sure, but they also were not exactly totally original. It's simply good form to put a recognizable name on something worth noticing. Not that I mean to slight the man, he was both courageous and weird, a combination I find worthy of respect.)

Die Welt ist Alles, was der Fall ist.

Anonymous Godscalc April 27, 2015 5:07 PM  

guest,

DNA phenotyping has advanced to the point that experts can identify the race of an individual with a very high degree of accuracy, discerning the race that the subjects themselves identify as independent of the tests themselves. So yes, race exists, your half an hour or so of online reading notwithstanding.

OpenID cailcorishev April 27, 2015 5:16 PM  

Liberals inherently believe that intelligence makes a person more valuable than those less intelligent.

I think the way Steve Sailer has put it is that leftists know two things for sure about IQ: 1) It's meaningless, and 2) theirs is higher than yours.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 5:17 PM  

Dear Danby: Sir, I am happy to see that you have abandoned your argument for "sub races." And by the way, I've never denied that there were no genetic differences between people. Please refer to my original post. My argument is that there are no genetic differences between people that make them more than one species or "race." And to be more specific, race has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. There is no gene for intelligence.

My definition of race is such:
Genesis 3:20
Then the man—Adam—named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live.


Genesis 10:32
These are the clans that descended from Noah’s sons, arranged by nation according to their lines of descent. All the nations of the earth descended from these clans after the great flood.

Anonymous Earache My Eye April 27, 2015 5:18 PM  

"So yes, race exists,"

Some of this fuming is simply political ("race does not exist, except whenever we want to benefit our own race, and then suddenly it does, for the fifty minutes it takes to get our race-preferential zany law passed, and then it won't again, as soon as that concept suits us"), and some of it is linguistic. In English, "race" has simply become too loaded a word. If we used something like "sub-type" instead, enough people might calm down to make rational discussion a bit more likely. The zealots and hard-core types will never stop, of course, but we already knew that.

Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 5:19 PM  

Canis lupus familiaris is also a single species, but I need a break, so if you'll excuse me (and even if you won't), I'm going out for a bit of ratting with my mastiff and racing with my pomeranian.

Anonymous Godscalc April 27, 2015 5:22 PM  

Biblically, your definition of race:

"a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." Hence, you have "the human race" because of relation by common descent."

Is dead on.


By this flawed logic, families are also non-existent.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 5:31 PM  

Dear Godscalc , I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the DNA phenotyping that you have described. Perhaps you could lead me to a particular article that describes an assay that can conclude any "race" We are advancing to the point where we can predict with some success, skin color, hair and eye color and geographic ancestry. What race, for example, would be attributed to the Indians of India?

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 5:35 PM  

Dear Godscalc :

"By this flawed logic, families are also non-existent."

Forgive me, I can't quite make out that connection?

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 5:47 PM  

@guest

So you conveniently lump it together as a singular "Biblical" definition (when it isn't) and dismiss it. How convenient. What about the other uses I put forth for it, for subsets of humanity?

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 5:50 PM  

@guest,
"Forgive me, I can't quite make out that connection?"
That's because you have a well-developed talent of not seeing what you refuse to see. I have not abandoned any argument, I am having to start with the base 0 level with your, as you are adamantly, and self-inflictedly blind..

What you are doing is conflating the word species and race, and then declaring that since there is no difference between species and race, that race does not exist.

This is simply dishonesty.

As in lying.

Yes, you are lying.

As a liar, you are no longer worth discussing this or any other issue with.

On the other hand your boastful "But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water." has become "There is no such thing as race!", which is transparently stupid.

Oh, and STFW means So The Fuck What?

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 5:52 PM  

Dear Student in Blue.

Oh I read them all-right. I simply found that they were too silly to bother answering. I was born and bred in the sticks of Indiana. Now I am a city-slicker. I didn't change my race to become so.

Anonymous Godscalc April 27, 2015 5:53 PM  

Forgive me, I can't quite make out that connection?

Forgive me, but I suspect you are being intentionally obtuse.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 6:01 PM  

Dear Danby.

You haven't refuted, at all, that all races are genetically equal.

Vox Day would be well advised to pay attention to my arguments, and decide how to refute them, or to abandon his own position, for one that is more supportable.

Proverbs 29:22
An angry person stirs up conflict, and a hot-tempered person commits many sins.

Anonymous Steve April 27, 2015 6:03 PM  

cailcorishev - leftists know two things for sure about IQ: 1) It's meaningless, and 2) theirs is higher than yours.

Yes. IQ doesn't exist, but George W. Bush and Sarah Palin are morons.

Similarly, race doesn't exist, but white men are bad.

There are no significant differences between the sexes, but men all over the world invented Patriarchy and somehow managed to oppress their female equals with it.

Climate change is such a terribly urgent threat that it's important Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio and James Cameron fly around in private jets to warn people about it.

America is a hopelessly racist country with a two-term black president.

Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say it isn't, you probably deserve to be beheaded.

Israel is basically Nazi Germany with kosher food, which is why it's the only functioning democracy in the Middle East where religious minorities aren't in danger of being slaughtered.

Tolerance is the most important virtue, which is why Christians and conservatives need to shut the fuck up.

Putting convicted murderers to death is evil and brutal, but putting unborn babies to death is a hallmark of civilisation.

We must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 6:06 PM  

Dear Godscalc

Well when an argument devolves in to ad-homs and insults--terms I have never used against any one of you--I always know that it is time to take my scored points and bid all adieu.

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 6:10 PM  

@guest
"You haven't refuted, at all, that all races are genetically equal."

You haven't presented an argument. I can't refuted what isn't presented. I presented an actual argument, you waved your hands in the air and denied reality. When you do present an argument, I'll be happy to refute it.

Oh, and take a class in Logic sometime. It'll help, honest.

"Vox Day would be well advised to pay attention to my arguments, and decide how to refute them, or to abandon his own position, for one that is more supportable."

That's just laughable "you'd better pay attention to me, and my vague indescribable assertions and redefinitions, and abandon the position you reasoned your self into!"

Or what? You'll deny that he exists?

Honest to God, Vox, how do they find you? Somehow they always find you.

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 6:12 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMsbOEeeIxk

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 27, 2015 6:13 PM  

“I didn't say "hides". You called it "bait and switch" and after some thought, I agreed to that. The provocative form of the (sometimes incomplete) truth is a bait."

It's not "incomplete", you're trying to weasel out of it. It's a shift in character. If someone claims to have been raped, and on questioning it turns out that by raped, they mean they were drunk at the time, led the guy on, let sex happen, and now regret it, they are hiding behind a technical interpretation of rape hinging on the fact that they never explicitly formally consented to sex. I assume you would object to that kind of tactic. Well, that's exactly what vox is doing. You might not want to call it "hiding" but the point is making an inflammatory claim and then hiding behind an interpretation of the claim that has a totally different character.

Anonymous puffthemagicdragon April 27, 2015 6:19 PM  

"Of course, this is not to say I have anything against it - it is always funny to see atheists rage."

Then you have nothing against provocation. In that case you have no right to be annoyed when Dawkins or Hitchens does the same.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 6:26 PM  

Well, that's exactly what vox is doing. You might not want to call it "hiding" but the point is making an inflammatory claim and then hiding behind an interpretation of the claim that has a totally different character.

I don't do that, for the most part. I make a perfectly straightforward claim that I know less intelligent and uneducated people will leap on as a mistake instead of actually addressing the relevant argument. I don't do it to be provocative, I do it to smoke out the rhetorical idiots who have no intention of engaging in rational discourse.

It works very well. And I save a lot of time not engaging dialectically with people who either cannot or will not.

And I could not care less whether you like it, whether you approve, or anything else. Idiots like you have been declaring me disqualified for 12 years now. I'm still here, the Dread Ilk are still here, and more readers than ever are here. You will not succeed in discrediting me or disqualifying me no matter how much you stomp your foot and complain that I am not fair. Smarter critics than you have repeatedly tried and failed.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 6:27 PM  

Then you have nothing against provocation. In that case you have no right to be annoyed when Dawkins or Hitchens does the same.

What are you babbling about now? I've written an entire book on that pair of jokers and not once did I ever complain about them being provocative. For crying out loud, Hitchens had very little to offer besides provocation.

Blogger Vox April 27, 2015 6:28 PM  

Vox Day would be well advised to pay attention to my arguments, and decide how to refute them, or to abandon his own position, for one that is more supportable.

No.

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 6:28 PM  

@Puff
SJWs are ALWAYS going to construct a lie to put the worst possible face on anything a conservative or libertarian says. ALWAYS.
So why should we concern ourselves with making it abundantly clear to you exactly all the definitions and parameters are when we say something, SINCE YOU WILL ALWAYS REMOVE THOSE CAVEATS ANYWAY.

For proof, I present, every cheap bint on the internet claiming that "Vox Day want to throw acid in women's faces."
In it's original context, it was very clear that he was executing a reducto ad absurdum on Atheists. Yet, when people like you get hold of it, it's stripped of context and turned into a proof quote of his evil.

So why not trigger your sorry amygdalas into panic and rage? You're going to do it to yourself anyway.

Blogger Markku April 27, 2015 6:31 PM  

He's talking to me. And no, I don't object to provocation, but the actual claims. I've read The God Delusion. It says exactly what one would first expect by the title.

Had the title turned out to be mere trolling, I would have said "heh" and then moved on.

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 6:33 PM  

To quote Daffy "And besides, It's fun!"

Blogger D. Lane April 27, 2015 6:52 PM  

Vox Day would be well advised to pay attention to my arguments, and decide how to refute them, or to abandon his own position, for one that is more supportable.

It is abundantly clear from your thread contributions that the only thing Vox should be advised to do is to ascend just close enough to the surface of the water to give you an idea of his approximate location, that the Ilk may be entertained by the spectacle of you attempting to kill a submarine with a molotov.

You stated that you would blow him out of the water. Do it. Commence with the devastating refutations, dammit!

Anonymous MendoScot April 27, 2015 6:55 PM  

Die Welt ist Alles, was der Fall ist.

Please tell me that you're trolling. It wasn't the conclusion, it was his starting point. That he inverted formal argumentation got him a lot of attention, but who takes his Tractatus seriously?

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 6:57 PM  

@guest

"Silly" doesn't refute that people use it as an actual term.

And I'm thrilled that you bothered to answer only the one about how sometimes ruralfolk describe citydwellers as "another race". I mean, not only did you completely sidestep the Native American one (would you bother answering that one as it's actually the closest to the definition used around here?), but you also proved with your anecdote that when people are talking metaphorically they may not be accurate literally. Congratulations.

I have to ask, why in the world are you equating race with species?

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 7:10 PM  

Dear Vox. Take this as kindly met my friend. You are not going to be able to prove that races are unequal to each other. You are most certainly not going to be able to prove that some races have higher intelligence than other races. Because intelligence does not come from genetic material. It is not a product of protein. Thus you have no means to demonstrate that intelligence is a racial or biological trait.

Let me put this another way for you. There is no gene, or gene variant, in which we can say, this race has X gene, and thus they have intelligence, and this race does not have X gene, thus they do not have intelligence. And anyone in a public debate, on youtube or anywhere else, is going to hit you with that fact, right off of the starting line. Then they are going to hammer and hammer and hammer you on that same biological fact, every chance they get.

I really do want the best for you. And by the way, you are dead right about marital sex. I would even go further by arguing that just the state of marriage keeps us on high sexual alert. Any partner who refuses sex, because they want to watch a television show, is tormenting their partner. In fact, it is physical bullying to deny sex to a marriage partner, who married, for the intention of having physical needs met.

It is part and parcel of the Anglican marriage ceremony:

" First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

Stick to your guns on that.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 7:42 PM  

D Lane:

Dear friend, no one has yet to rebut these points. Perhaps you could:

1) There is no gene for intelligence.

2) The inherited alleles and genes on the human genome are interchangeable between all peoples on earth.
a) It has been proven by the fact that intermarriage is universally fertile.
b) It has been proven by the human genome project

3) From a biblical point of view, all mankind came from one couple
a) You don't need to refute that if you don't believe in God or the bible. I understand that not everyone does.



Anonymous kfg April 27, 2015 8:06 PM  

Won't somebody please socially reconstruct the poor, oppressed hamsters?

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 8:16 PM  

Dear Student in Blue.

The reason that I am equating race with a biological species, is that I don't know any other way to analyze this problem scientifically. When we talk about racial attributes that makes one "superior" or "inferior" or "unequal" the only thing I can equate that to, is genetic variation and allele potential.

I'm sorry if I was rude to you, and I am especially sorry if you are young, because I have an obligation to be kind to the young.

Native Americans descended from Mongolians. This is an ethnic group, predominantly "Mongoloid" but doubtful, that they are purely Mongoloid. (the race) And East Asians, you might note have light skin.

Nevertheless, they had the same genome that the Europeans who mated with them possessed. Otherwise, they could not have had fertile couplings. And couple they did, indeed, do.

Inability to metabolize alcohol is found in any number of ethnic groups. Skin color is decided by a number of biological products--Melanin, produced by skin cells, hemoglobin and blue white connection tissue. It is important to remember that every single race has each of these genes that manufacture these products in some measure. No matter what race you are, you have melanin--unless you are an albino; you have hemoglobin and you have connective tissue.

Whites who colonized America, and who called native American "Red-skinned" were merely being ridiculous. Native Americans do not have red skin. I've met a lot of them. They have various shades of brown skin. Vox Day happens to be pasty white, and significantly whiter than myself. Chinese aren't yellow either. I've yet to meet a yellow person.

I hope that clears this up.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 8:21 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 8:22 PM  

Dear Danby,

I understand what you mean about taking a class in logic. Because I'm very sure that if I were to have taken that class in logic, the very first advice they would have given me to debate and issue would be to lose my temper and start insulting people.

The second thing they would have taught me was to use profanity. Yep that should always do the trick. Especially the F bomb. That is the ticket, right there.

Anonymous The other robot April 27, 2015 8:23 PM  

Native Americans descended from Mongolians.

This is simply untrue and ignorant on so many levels.

It may be true that modern-Mongolians and Native Americans are descended from an earlier common population, but then it is also known that modern-East Asians and Northern Europeans also have much more in common than do sub-Saharan Africans and either of those two do.

However, all of these are distinguishable genetically and via physical anthropology.

Anonymous scoobius dubious April 27, 2015 8:25 PM  

"Vox Day would be well advised to pay attention to my arguments, and decide how to refute them, or to abandon his own position, for one that is more supportable."

"No."

Instead of "No," (a perfectly respectable reply btw), I think what you should have said was "chuckle chuckle," or "hee hee hee." It would have better suited the dignity of the accusation.

Anonymous scooby the talking dog April 27, 2015 8:30 PM  

"Die Welt ist Alles, was der Fall ist."
"Please tell me that you're trolling. It wasn't the conclusion, it was his starting point. "

That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.

You'd be well advised to take that one under consideration.

Come out and play, fucko.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 8:31 PM  

The other robot

You know I read that on a website discussing mitochondrial DNA studies and ancestry, and never questioned it. Perhaps I should have. Do you have any links?

Blogger SirHamster April 27, 2015 8:39 PM  

You can read exactly what Markku himself wrote. He admitted that at least "sometimes" Vox baits his targets then hides behind a technical non-normative interpretation to win arguments.

They just can't help themselves. "Being clickbait", "being unnecessarily provocative" would be fair assessments.

But to tack on "to win arguments"? No, it's for the lulz and as a timesaving filter.

Anonymous scooby dooby doo April 27, 2015 8:40 PM  

Or as the Old Man once put it........

"Path / can speak about / not / real path."

Like I said before...... come out and play.

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 8:50 PM  

@guest
"Dear Danby,

I understand what you mean about taking a class in logic. Because I'm very sure that if I were to have taken that class in logic, the very first advice they would have given me to debate and issue would be to lose my temper and start insulting people.

The second thing they would have taught me was to use profanity. Yep that should always do the trick. Especially the F bomb. That is the ticket, right there."


Well, I tried logical argumentation, and you are incapable of actually completing a single logical thought. This implies (but does not prove) that you are an idiot. Failing of that, rhetoric is the only viable option, to make you so ashamed of your idiocy that you just shut up, or go somewhere that your intelligence seems more than nominal.

Problem is, you are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, unable to see just how stupid you are. I don't see this ending well.

All of the points you bring up are literally beside the point. They never address the issue.

You do not believe in races? Do you similarly not believe in breeds of dog? After all , all dogs are descended from an original pair of dogs. Are there no subspecies of bear? After all, any polar bear can breed with any brown bear.

You announced that your approach is refutation-proof. So far it is Assertion-proof.

I am still waiting for a one-sentence statement of your thesis, that will distill your argument. Instead you continue to bloviate about unrelated things.

Blogger Student in Blue April 27, 2015 9:07 PM  

@guest
The reason that I am equating race with a biological species, is that I don't know any other way to analyze this problem scientifically.

How about using the word SPECIES when you're talking about SPECIES, and RACE when talking about RACE? They are not the same term. Using the correct term for the occasion is the scientific way.

When we talk about racial attributes that makes one "superior" or "inferior" or "unequal" the only thing I can equate that to, is genetic variation and allele potential.

So what do you call it when groups of distinct phenotypes of humans develop in a population? They're not a different species, they're...?

The answer, biologically speaking, has been race. That's the term for it.

Nevertheless, they had the same genome that the Europeans who mated with them possessed. Otherwise, they could not have had fertile couplings.

You are the only one making this distinction, as if someone, somewhere on this blog, tried to claim that black people are a different species.

Anonymous MendoScot April 27, 2015 9:15 PM  

That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.

By your own words...

Remind me what happened to logical positivism.

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 9:25 PM  

Dear Danby.

The one thing that Vox Day might want to take note on, is that contrary to his belief that "intellect" does not make one race or person more or less important to another race or person, in fact, his followers esteem intellect very highly, and condemn stupidity.

What if I am stupid. Danby? Does that have anything at all to do with my value as a person? Does it have anything to do with whether or not I should go away? Or that my opinions or arguments should be less esteemed, by people such as yourself, who believe themselves well above my humble intellect?

According to Vox, it doesn't. But that belief, no matter how sincerely expressed, and no matter how kindly I feel for him, having expressed it, is not going to go over very well, for men that are willing to debate him in public. Men who probably feel a whole lot more like you do--that dullards, and intellectually impaired persons, have nothing to sell, in the market-place of ideas.

But let's proceed with your question. It is a good one. Do I believe in breeds of dogs? Yes I do. They generally involve a loss of genetic information. Most of the times, it is due to human related selection for a trait, or traits, but there might be one or two breeds of dogs that happened by a natural selection event. Perhaps they were trapped on an island, and there were only a few dogs to breed. --such as the people on Martha's Vineyard, who are now deaf, due to close breeding in a closed society. Genetic variation can get lost.



Anonymous scoobius dubious April 27, 2015 9:46 PM  

"Remind me what happened to logical positivism."

Och, bleeding Jaysus, for fuck's crying sake, you don't actually know how to think about these things at all, do ye? "What happened to....?" As if anything at all really "happens" in the way you think you understand it.
Stop collecting little gold stars on your bleedin' report card, and start examining things as things in themselves.

In other words, arsewipe..........

Come out and play.

Actually, on second thought, don't. I'm not a bloody online university. At least those fuckers get paid for their time.

Don't come out to play, just piss off.


Anonymous Harsh April 27, 2015 9:55 PM  

Oh shut up. You know what you're doing, this rationalizing is tiresome. You can "smoke" them out by presenting the relevant argument, you're doing do it garner controversy, and increase your notoriety. In order to increase business. There are less sleazy used car salesmen.

Another gamma tell: "I know you're lying about your motives." What's tiresome, puff, is little gamma nobodies like you coming in here thinking that they're the smartest guy in the room. You got nothing.

Anonymous MendoScot April 27, 2015 10:28 PM  

"What happened to....?" As if anything at all really "happens" in the way you think you understand it.

Your submission is accepted.

Blogger D. Lane April 27, 2015 10:36 PM  

Dear friend, no one has yet to rebut these points.

Nobody has to. You initiated this discussion with your claim that Vox's position was fatally flawed:

But the argument that not all "races" are genetically equal would be easy to blow out of the water. I highly recommend that you review the information on genetics before you try to defend that POV, Vox.

But I'll humor you. Seeing that I am not sufficiently read up on the genetic literature, I'll leave that up to more educated minds. Instead, I will simply attack the logical (in)consistency of your argument. We shall assume that points 1-3 are true.

1. The existence or nonexistence of an intelligence gene is irrelevant.

Vox stated that he does not believe that genetic equality exists between races. The existence or nonexistence of an intelligence gene does not disprove this position. It does not disprove the position because myriad other genes result in observably different cognitive and physiological differences among human racial groups.

This is a point you have already admitted:

Genetically we are different for all sorts of reasons.

The absence of a single gene does not disprove the existence of other genetic differences among population groups. Therefore, your point is completely irrelevant. You stated that Vox is wrong about human inequality, not that his understanding of IQ is erroneous.

2. The interchangeability of human genetic information is irrelevant.

That human genetic material can be mixed and matched without a meaningful impact to fertility does not disprove human inequality. Vox has a multiracial genetic background. I have a multiracial background. A number of other Ilk have multiracial backgrounds of some degree or another. This makes us each genetically different and therefore unequal to one another in myriad ways.

That we can all exist and successfully procreate with human females doesn’t change the fact that Vox is a faster sprinter than most of the Ilk. It doesn’t change the fact that, at 6’2, I’m taller than Ilk shorter than 6’2. It doesn’t change the fact that some Ilk have full heads of hair at 50 and some don’t (pattern baldness). It also doesn’t change the fact that some of us are more attractive to women than others as a result of physical and cognitive characteristics.

All of these differences are significantly genetic in nature. Thus, genetic inequality most demonstrably exists, irrespective of the profitability of banging a babe from a given racial group.

3. The biblical origin of man must be true or false; it cannot be reduced to personal conviction.

You have consistently cited the Bible to establish your view of the human race. Either you hold that view to be true, or you don’t. Therefore, regardless of my personal convictions, there is no option to ignore the claim of biblical origins, as it is a major component of your position on race. Let’s hold that this origin is true.

Descent from a common ancestor does not refute the claim of genetic difference between racial groups. If descent from a common ancestor refuted genetic differences, there would be no distinct groups in existence to begin with. Furthermore, the Bible contains no passage that I am aware of refuting the concept of distinct racial groups.


Now, are you going to blow up Vox already, or shall I sink another canoe?

Blogger Danby April 27, 2015 10:42 PM  

What if I am stupid. Danby? Does that have anything at all to do with my value as a person?
No.

Does it have anything to do with whether or not I should go away?
Yes. You should stop embarrassing yourself and bothering people who are trying to speak intelligently.

Or that my opinions or arguments should be less esteemed, by people such as yourself, who believe themselves well above my humble intellect?
Yes.
Your argument should be esteemed not because it is yours, but because it reflects the truth. Since your argument deliberately reflects nothing, it is not to be esteemed at all.
It has nothing to do with who you are, it is the arguments you make. or rather fail to make, that define the argument.

If you are stupid, or let's use a politically correct term, if like my mentally retarded daughter, you are intellectually impaired, you are of great worth. God Himself said so, and in fact died in agony in an attempt to save you from yourself. God esteems you higher than his own life. The value of God's life is infinite, as God is infinite. You are therefore of infinite worth.

As we know, two lines of infinite length are equal in length. Therefore we are both of equal worth, as is my daughter. However, lives are not lines, a line is only one dimension. In other dimensions, our three-dimensional lives may and do vary quite a bit. To try to conflate the two is completely dishonest.

And if you were the Christian you are posing as, quoting scripture and all (although I note you are honest enough to use clever wording to avoid claiming scripture as the basis of your view, while appearing to do so), you would understand all this.

Anonymous BoysMom April 27, 2015 10:46 PM  

guest, everyone who follows, well, anything remotely in the biologic sciences, is well aware that base intelligence is inherited. Five seconds with a search engine yields: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/brainy-sons-owe-intelligence-to-their-mothers-1339099.html
Perhaps you would like to do some research and reconsider your position?

Blogger guest April 27, 2015 11:00 PM  

Dear Student in blue"

There is a reason that we have to use biological terminology to discuss biology. Our friend Vox made a biological assertion. It was thus:

"That all modern human beings are not genetically equal."



First of all, I am happy that he changed this from his former argument that not all races were genetically equal, which is what he asserted in the dialogue I heard with him and Pakman. In that discussion he spoke of races, which is far more problematic.

The problem with using the term "race" when discussing biology, is that biologist are discontinuing the word race, in terms of human populations. They frequently use terms for ethnic groups or small populations. In fact, in a copy of the Biology textbook I have on hand:

What Is Life" A Guide to Biology with Physiology 2nd edition, Jay Phelan UCLA; W h Freeman; NY 2013, I can't find the word "race" used at all. It isn't in the glossary. It isn't found in the table of contents, and it isn't found in the index. The word isn't there. It wasn't even used back in the day when I was hacking out a degree in Life Science. Biologists simply are finding the term "race" to describe distinct populations,less and less useful.

Here are a few examples that I believe may answer your question:

The Duffy blood group antigen is more often found in Asian populations and Caucasian populations. There is a natural selection cause of that. The Duffy antigen also happens to be a receptor for the Plasmodium parasite, which causes malaria, and thus, the duffy null blood group is found in populations that live in areas in which malaria is common.

In fact, more blacks are Duffy null than Caucasians and Asians. But not all blacks. I cannot, for example, assume that this blood came from a black donor. therefore it is Duffy Ag negative. In addition, Caucasians and Asian populations also are Duffy null. I cannot assume that this blood came from a white, so therefore, it has the Duffy blood group. So defining races by phenotypes is becoming less useful to biologists.

Okay, here is another example. Martha's vineyard inhabitants are deaf. You can read their history for yourself online. It's an interesting story. I think it had to do with a religious difference of opinion, and someone stomping off in a huff. They ended up on Martha's vineyard, and due to close breeding lost an allele that provided for hearing. However, these are not a different r-a-c-e then the Europeans they came from.

So to your question" "So what do you call it when groups of distinct phenotypes of humans develop in a population? They're not a different species, they're...?

The answer is "a population."

You last question, is thus:

You are the only one making this distinction, as if someone, somewhere on this blog, tried to claim that black people are a different species.

What I am stating is that the human "race" is a species. It is a species called H. sapiens, sapiens. And of this species, all members share a common genome. There is no separate genome for negroids. There is no separate genome for Caucasians. There is no separate genome for Mongoloids. And this is the reason that all of these races can intermarry and produce children. As I stated, skin color is a matter of quantity of melanin. We all make it. We all make hemoglobin. We all make the factors that lead to variations of skin color.

That is also the reason that more and more populations are mixtures of various populations. Why it is harder to define a race, such as Indians. Immigration and intermarriage have blurred the lines of race. We really don't even know where one race stops and another race begins. Therefore any claim that one race is "superior" or "inferior" or "unequal" to another in regards to a phenotype is going to be impossible to prove.

The argument that not all people are genetically equal, is a much easier position to support.





1 – 200 of 238 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts