[split] IF you deconverted in midlife, can you help?-NDE Discussion

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*

If according to you, aggressively defending Dr. Sabom's conclusions (which I did no such thing, I plainly stated that I had no access to his book, what I did do was point out your source incorrectly referring to Pam's name as a 'pseudonym') then explain how YOUR aggressive defense of the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve' did not become YOUR claim?

Since I never aggressively defended the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve', I have nothing to explain.

Was I having a debate over the 'Bell Curve' with your doppelganger? 

Then please explain why you crossed out the content of this post arguing against the pseudoscience of 'bell curve'?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-55205-p...pid1767528


If according to you, pointing out someones bias is 'aggressive', then shouldn't striking out facts you don't agree with also qualify as aggressive?

[Angrboda]

Since I never aggressively defended the opinions expressed in the 'Bell curve', I have nothing to explain.

Was I having a debate over the 'Bell Curve' with your doppelganger? 

Then please explain why you crossed out the content of this post arguing against the pseudoscience of 'bell curve'?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-55205-p...pid1767528


If according to you, pointing out someones bias is 'aggressive', then shouldn't striking out facts you don't agree with also qualify as aggressive?

I crossed out the parts that weren't ad hominems to show the amount of ad hominem you were engaging in. It had nothing whatever to do with the facts you had presented. I'm going to conclude that you must have been having a debate with a doppelganger, one that likely existed solely in your mind, as I never defended the opinions expressed in The Bell Curve. And I pointed out to you the explicit reason for my post when asked immediately after posting it. The notion that I crossed out those portions of your post because I disagreed with them is something you're pulling out of thin air. And given that I immediately clarified my intent gives you no excuse for portraying it otherwise, other than an unjustified hostility toward me for having the audacity to have an opinion which wasn't yours. You want to believe I'm a racist, so you just make up shit, ignoring any contrary evidence or statements.

That there is plenty of shooting the messenger, aka ad hominem, in your reply. Of what relevance is the nature of the Pioneer Fund to the question of whether their conclusions are justified or not?

[Huggy Bear]

Was I having a debate over the 'Bell Curve' with your doppelganger? 

Then please explain why you crossed out the content of this post arguing against the pseudoscience of 'bell curve'?
https://atheistforums.org/thread-55205-p...pid1767528

---

---

If according to you, pointing out someones bias is 'aggressive', then shouldn't striking out facts you don't agree with also qualify as aggressive?

I crossed out the parts that weren't ad hominems to show the amount of ad hominem you were engaging in.  It had nothing whatever to do with the facts you had presented.  I'm going to conclude that you must have been having a debate with a doppelganger, one that likely existed solely in your mind, as I never defended the opinions expressed in The Bell Curve.  And I pointed out to you the explicit reason for my post when asked immediately after posting it.  The notion that I crossed out those portions of your post because I disagreed with them is something you're pulling out of thin air.  And given that I immediately clarified my intent gives you no excuse for portraying it otherwise, other than an unjustified hostility toward me for having the audacity to have an opinion which wasn't yours.

Two points you crossed out

Rushton's controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research

Herrnstein and Murray were criticized for not submitting their work to peer review before publication

Please explain how those points are "ad hominem"...

You want to believe I'm a racist, so you just make up shit, ignoring any contrary evidence or statements.

First of all you never posted ANY contrary evidence, or maybe your doppelganger posted some that I missed somehow, please provide a link.

Secondly, I don't know what else you'd call someone that defends racist propoganda...

That there is plenty of shooting the messenger, aka ad hominem, in your reply.  Of what relevance is the nature of the Pioneer Fund to the question of whether their conclusions are justified or not?

“task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.” - Adolf Hitler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund

Wickliffe Preston Draper, the fund's de facto final authority, served on the Board of Directors from 1937 until 1972. He founded Pioneer Fund after having acquired an interest in the Eugenics movement, which was strengthened by his 1935 visit to Nazi Germany, where he met with the leading eugenicists of the Third Reich who used the inspiration from the American movement as a basis for the Nuremberg Laws.

I thought you were pretty smart Jor, yet you can't figure you why the ideology of the organization behind the funding of the 'Bell Curve' is relevant? You would never say that the ideology of the Nazis aren't relevant to their conclusions of the genetics of Jews, yet the Founder of the Pioneer fund and Hitler had the same goal...

Let me explain it...

The Nazis received their idea of eugenics from America

The eugenics movement started in America and spread to Germany, the Nazis used that ideology to portray the Jews as subhuman in order to justify their extermination.

Any "research" supported by the pioneer fund would be used and most likely WAS used to justify the disenfranchisement of those with "low IQ's" who just happen to be black.

[Angrboda]

I guess Jormungandr has no response...

Why you guys continue to act like I don't post receipts is beyond me.

I haven't posted a response because I find responding to fucking morons like you a very low priority. But thanks for jumping to the wrong conclusion once again.

---

I crossed out the parts that weren't ad hominems to show the amount of ad hominem you were engaging in.  It had nothing whatever to do with the facts you had presented.  I'm going to conclude that you must have been having a debate with a doppelganger, one that likely existed solely in your mind, as I never defended the opinions expressed in The Bell Curve.  And I pointed out to you the explicit reason for my post when asked immediately after posting it.  The notion that I crossed out those portions of your post because I disagreed with them is something you're pulling out of thin air.  And given that I immediately clarified my intent gives you no excuse for portraying it otherwise, other than an unjustified hostility toward me for having the audacity to have an opinion which wasn't yours.

Two points you crossed out

Rushton's controversial work was heavily criticized by the scientific community for the questionable quality of its research

Herrnstein and Murray were criticized for not submitting their work to peer review before publication

Please explain how those points are "ad hominem"...

I said that I had crossed out the points that were NOT ad hominems. Jesus bloody motherfucking mother of Christ, are you seriously this reading comprehension challenged?

You want to believe I'm a racist, so you just make up shit, ignoring any contrary evidence or statements.

First of all you never posted ANY contrary evidence, or maybe your doppelganger posted some that I missed somehow, please provide a link.

Evidence or statements contrary to your belief that I'm a racist. You really don't comprehend the shit you read, do you?



I had recently stated that I didn't think you were a vegetable. In light of recent events, I'm retracting that assertion. You show many signs of being a vegetable.

Secondly, I don't know what else you'd call someone that defends racist propoganda...

Since I never defended racist propaganda, this is just more of your attempts to smear me with lies and falsehoods.

That there is plenty of shooting the messenger, aka ad hominem, in your reply.  Of what relevance is the nature of the Pioneer Fund to the question of whether their conclusions are justified or not?

“task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.” - Adolf Hitler

[blah, blah, blah, blah....]

I thought you were pretty smart Jor, yet you can't figure you why the ideology of the organization behind the funding of the 'Bell Curve' is relevant? You would never say that the ideology of the Nazis aren't relevant to their conclusions of the genetics of Jews, yet the Founder of the Pioneer fund and Hitler had the same goal...

[More blah, blah, blah, blah....]

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I said that it was an ad hominem, and additionally pointed out that if you were attempting to refute the hypothesis that blacks possess inherently lower IQ's than whites, then ad hominem or no, you were simply shooting the messenger instead of killing the message. On the particular point of whether their racism is relevant, if you're trying to show that the conclusions of the Bell Curve are wrong, then, no, it isn't relevant. It might be relevant if your only intent was simply to show that Murray et al had a motive for presenting bad science, but that does not appear to be what you were trying to prove. Moreover, having a motive for doing something, by itself, isn't evidence that you indeed did do that thing. You're as bad as Drich, believing that you can just ignore fallacies and flawed logic in your arguments if you can somehow talk around it. I will also point out that you never did show that Murray et al's overall hypothesis of inferiority of black IQs was wrong, and pointedly refused to do so, thus acquitting my original complaint and showing that you were unable or unwilling to show that their general thesis was wrong.

Now I'm bored with your nonsense, your lies, and your simple inability to even understand plain English. If you choose to respond, know that I am going to place a very low priority on your bullshit, so don't get all excited if I don't respond for a day or two. If I decide to write you off completely, I will likely tell you so. Beyond that I'll simply point out that concluding that I don't have a response because I haven't responded is yet another non sequitur, and simply more proof that you don't logic so well. Drich tries to pull the same shit all the time. I guess it's a Christian thing.

I'll also parenthetically add that you made me miss the start of the Bears / Lions game. Something eminently more important than you and your fucking bullshit.

[Huggy Bear]

I guess Jormungandr has no response...

Why you guys continue to act like I don't post receipts is beyond me.

I haven't posted a response because I find responding to fucking morons like you a very low priority.   But thanks for jumping to the wrong conclusion once again.

Do I detect ad hominem?

---

Two points you crossed out



Please explain how those points are "ad hominem"...

I said that I had crossed out the points that were NOT ad hominems.  Jesus bloody motherfucking mother of Christ, are you seriously this reading comprehension challenged?

Regardless, the accusations of racism is directly drawn from the questionable research, therefore to cross out those points would be to take the accusations of racism out of context.[/quote]

First of all you never posted ANY contrary evidence, or maybe your doppelganger posted some that I missed somehow, please provide a link.

Evidence or statements contrary to your belief that I'm a racist.  You really don't comprehend the shit you read, do you?



I had recently stated that I didn't think you were a vegetable.  In light of recent events, I'm retracting that assertion.  You show many signs of being a vegetable.

Secondly, I don't know what else you'd call someone that defends racist propoganda...

Since I never defended racist propaganda, this is just more of your attempts to smear me with lies and falsehoods.

“task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.” - Adolf Hitler

[blah, blah, blah, blah....]

I thought you were pretty smart Jor, yet you can't figure you why the ideology of the organization behind the funding of the 'Bell Curve' is relevant? You would never say that the ideology of the Nazis aren't relevant to their conclusions of the genetics of Jews, yet the Founder of the Pioneer fund and Hitler had the same goal...

[More blah, blah, blah, blah....]

I didn't say it wasn't relevant, I said that it was an ad hominem, and additionally pointed out that if you were attempting to refute the hypothesis that blacks possess inherently lower IQ's than whites, then ad hominem or no, you were simply shooting the messenger instead of killing the message.  On the particular point of whether their racism is relevant, if you're trying to show that the conclusions of the Bell Curve are wrong, then, no, it isn't relevant.  It might be relevant if your only intent was simply to show that Murray et al had a motive for presenting bad science, but that does not appear to be what you were trying to prove.  Moreover, having a motive for doing something, by itself, isn't evidence that you indeed did do that thing.  You're as bad as Drich, believing that you can just ignore fallacies and flawed logic in your arguments if you can somehow talk around it.  I will also point out that you never did show that Murray et al's overall hypothesis of inferiority of black IQs was wrong, and pointedly refused to do so, thus acquitting my original complaint and showing that you were unable or unwilling to show that their general thesis was wrong.

Now I'm bored with your nonsense, your lies, and your simple inability to even understand plain English.  If you choose to respond, know that I am going to place a very low priority on your bullshit, so don't get all excited if I don't respond for a day or two.  If I decide to write you off completely, I will likely tell you so.  Beyond that I'll simply point out that concluding that I don't have a response because I haven't responded is yet another non sequitur, and simply more proof that you don't logic so well.  Drich tries to pull the same shit all the time.  I guess it's a Christian thing.

I'll also parenthetically add that you made me miss the start of the Bears / Lions game.  Something eminently more important than you and your fucking bullshit.

*emphasis mine*

I pointed out on multiple occasions that they manipulated their "research" to show only the results they wanted, for instance they would complete ignore cases where black students scored higher than white ones, hence the accusations of racism....


https://www.samtiden.com/tbc/las_artikel.php?id=66

Lynn chose to ignore the substance of Crawford-Nutt's paper, which reported that 228 black high school students in Soweto scored an average of 45 correct responses on the Matrices--HIGHER than the mean of 44 achieved by the same-age white sample on whom the test's norms had been established and well above the mean of Owen's coloured pupils.

Furthermore I showed where the IQ scores were just made up.

https://www.samtiden.com/tbc/las_artikel.php?id=66

Owen's 1992 paper again does not assign IQs to the pupils. Rather he gives the mean number of correct responses on the Progressive Matrices (out of a possible 60) for each group: 45 for whites, 42 for Indians, 37 for coloureds and 28 for blacks. The test's developer, John Raven, repeatedly insisted that results on the Progressive Matrices tests cannot be converted into IQs. Matrices scores, unlike IQs, are not symmetrical around their mean (no "bell curve" here). There is thus no meaningful way to convert an average of raw Matrices scores into an IQ, and no comparison with American black IQs is possible.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/12/...ell-curve/

Nevertheless, Murray and Herrnstein venture an estimate of African IQ, drawn mainly from an article by Lynn that appeared in Mankind Quarterly in 1991.

My point to you was there was no basis for the hypothesis in the first place so what exactly am I disproving?

That being said, YOU'RE the one that jumped in on the conversation I was having with someone else, now you want to play victim when you start getting that work...

You guys hop in and derail any thread i'm replying to out of desperation to find me wrong on the most trivial, irrelevant matters.