More Embarassment for the Nobel

[lI1|1!]

some 's are created more equal than others

[KaskadskyjKozak]

some 's are created more equal than others

 

gee, isn't that what the Nobel laureate said?

[TrogdortheBurninator]

 

=

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

=

 

 

[cj001f]

 

I'd bollywood if i could too

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

I'd bollywood if i could too

 

I wonder if he consider's Indians to be inferior, "coloreds" too...

[cj001f]

 

I'd bollywood if i could too

 

I wonder if he consider's Indians to be inferior, "coloreds" too...

 

They are good aryans

[sexual_chocolate]

linky

 

and this from a SCIENTIST!

 

I'm interested in how everyone jumps up in arms, but doesn't address a single actual issue regarding this.

 

Why is this? Because it's an incredibly sensitive subject (obviously).

 

And since you capitalize "scientist" above, I assume you are attacking his inability to fathom some sort of "scientific" concept or process?

 

Maybe you could explain what you mean?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

linky

 

and this from a SCIENTIST!

 

I'm interested in how everyone jumps up in arms, but doesn't address a single actual issue regarding this.

 

Why is this? Because it's an incredibly sensitive subject (obviously).

 

And since you capitalize "scientist" above, I assume you are attacking his inability to fathom some sort of "scientific" concept or process?

 

Maybe you could explain what you mean?

 

There is a propensity by certain people to put scientists on some pedestal as noble beings, self-sacrificing, and, yes, morally superior. Especially compared to ignorant, uneducated, simple folks of faith.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

 

There is a propensity by certain people to put scientists on some pedestal as noble beings, self-sacrificing, and, yes, morally superior. Especially compared to ignorant, uneducated, simple folks of faith.

 

 

So your problem wasn't with what the "scientist" said, it was with peoples' propensity for being hagiographic towards "scientists"?

 

Am I getting this right?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

There is a propensity by certain people to put scientists on some pedestal as noble beings, self-sacrificing, and, yes, morally superior. Especially compared to ignorant, uneducated, simple folks of faith.

 

 

So your problem wasn't with what the "scientist" said, it was with peoples' propensity for being hagiographic towards "scientists"?

 

Am I getting this right?

 

No, you aren't. Obviously the story - and the issue- is what he said, and his profession is secondary.

 

However, I'll be sure to file his name in my mental file cabinet for the next debate where someone claims scientists have no personal agendas and are pure, self-sacrificing, noble souls pursuing science and basing all their judgements on scientific evidence alone

 

[Peter_Puget]

The peace prize is a joke. Carter accepting a few years ago showed what jerk he was especially when you compare his behavior to the the North Vietnamese guy who won with Kissinger. He turned it down....

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Obviously the story - and the issue- is what he said, and his profession is secondary.

 

What is the exact problem you have with what he said?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Obviously the story - and the issue- is what he said, and his profession is secondary.

 

What is the exact problem you have with what he said?

 

don't be obtuse

[sexual_chocolate]

Obtuse?

 

Please tell me what the problem is that you have with what he said?

 

I would guess it should be pretty simple, considering the emotive response you had to it.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Obtuse?

 

Please tell me what the problem is that you have with what he said?

 

I would guess it should be pretty simple, considering the emotive response you had to it.

 

follow my link, read the statements quoted.

 

they are indefensible. there's nothing to say.

 

if YOU want to defend them, however, somehow, well, we can have a discussion

 

[sexual_chocolate]

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

 

In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically.

 

 

In the first quote above, are you familiar with the "testing" that he speaks of?

 

 

And in the second quote, would you have any intellectual sympathy with such a statement? Would you not be inclined to believe that organisms evolving in differing environs might evolve with differing characteristics?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."

 

In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically.

 

 

 

 

 

In the first quote above, are you familiar with the "testing" that he speaks of?

 

 

And in the second quote, would you have any intellectual sympathy with such a statement? Would you not be inclined to believe that organisms evolving in differing environs might evolve with differing characteristics?

 

I believe that if you took n individuals (where n consisted of a large enough sample to be statistically significant) of African origin, and n of any other race, and gave them equivalent upbringings - education, economic benefits, support, family life, etc. and then administered a standardized intelligence test to both groups, the results would be bell curves that were statistically indistinguishable from one another.

[sexual_chocolate]

So you are not familiar with the "testing" that he speaks of?

 

And yes, you would have sympathy with the second quote.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So you are not familiar with the "testing" that he speaks of?

 

And yes, you would have sympathy with the second quote.

 

no, i wouldn't have sympathy with the second quote.

 

the 'testing'? this guy is judging intelligence based on his "empirical observations" of those minorities he has worked with, and deemed, w/o any scientific study that they are tautologically of inferior intelligence than he. he's socially retarded and an elitist racist pig. a typical academic.

 

 

[chucK]

Hee hee. KkkKkk is being politically correct!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hee hee. KkkKkk is being politically correct!

 

dude, it's completely idiotic to say an entire race is genetically inferior.

 

you could make cultural arguments, sure (and those would be very politically incorrect), but to say a whole race is inferior. dumb.

 

[chucK]

There you go again! PC PC PC!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

There you go again! PC PC PC!

 

isn't that the goal of your left-wing propaganda machine? you should be thankful that you have succeeded.

[sexual_chocolate]

no, i wouldn't have sympathy with the second quote.

 

Really? What is your science based misgiving about the following:

 

"In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically."

 

 

 

the 'testing'? this guy is judging intelligence based on his "empirical observations" of those minorities he has worked with, and deemed, w/o any scientific study that they are tautologically of inferior intelligence than he. he's socially retarded and an elitist racist pig. a typical academic.

 

Is this the testing really (reference please)? Or are you making an assumption?