Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
Even Michael Moore has told the truth once in awhile!  I do not not deny that his findings are debated. I concede that point. That is why I think it would have been better for Fraser's views to be debated by society rather then for him to be brought before a HREOC tribunal. |
I think a much more appropriate forum for forwarding and debating these matters is academia. Most members of society know little about Rushton, his critics, or the debate more generally. I hardly see a few follow-up letters to the editor, a special edition of lateline and a poll deciding the matter once and for all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
It also would not surprise me if some of Rushtons supporters are Pioneer Fund receipients since this was one of the few if not the only non-profit organisation that funded the kind of psychology research performed by these scholars.
|
Most organisations don't want to fund pseudo-science, a criticism directed at both Rushton and Jenson. Rushton's methodology, interpretations of others work, and lack of fieldwork are seen as dubious by his peers, not just the controversial conclusions he draws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
That was quite a rational rebuttal from that skeptic! I am surprised that he did not challenge Rushton to a Vince McMahon promoted steel cage match! |
That was just the funniest one, do the google if you want to see (many) more rational, academic rebuttals.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
In my personal view...YES! Bringing someone before a quasi-judicial tribunal for making politically incorrect comments about race is a form of sanctioning in my view; especially when the tribunal could be used in federal court as evidence.
Second, the man was threatened with court action. This strikes me as a form of intimidation and for what? Expressing unpopular views supported by numerous academics from Jensen to Lynn?
Lets debate the issue and leave the courts and tribunals out of it.
|
Out of interest, were his views to be clearly shown false, based on bad science, misleading or false data, would you still see the tribunals actions as a concern? If someone could convince you Rushton's findings were bollocks, would you have a problem with the HREOC's actions?
Also, Jensen and Lynn are both Pioneer fund beneficiaries. I'd prefer to know of some academics supporting Rushton who have not performed their research courtesy of the fund which he presides over. I assume you can understand why.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
'I don't know if what Fraser says is true, yet its truth surely affects whether it is racist. But none of his critics seem to care. Macquarie University made no effort to argue the facts with him, nor did Deakin University. A statement by Fraser's union speaks of racism, not the facts. In its letter to Fraser, the human rights commission doesn't raise the issue of truth: what matters is that someone was offended'. - Mike Duffy
It appears that what Duffy said was true. 1) The university did not debate the issue with Fraser and yes I know they are not obligated to do so. However, it is still a fact that they did not do so. 2) The unions statements on the issue spoke of racism, not Frasers arguments. 3) The HREOC does not accept truth as a defence.
What Duffy said appears to be 100% gospel truth to me?
|
Perhaps it is, but he's barking up the wrong tree, with the possible exception of the HREOC. If Fraser, or Duffy, wanted a debate, he is (was) perfectly placed in academia to enter one, instead he took the media-whore route, (because he'd have his ass handed to him on the academic stage). The uni and union aren't required to bail out every dickhead academic who shoots their mouth off in public offending minorities by purpoting highly dubious findings as the truth. Secondly, on issues as highly debateable as this, are 5-minute soundbite public forums or a bunch of lawyers really better venues for discerning truth than ongoing debate in academic journals?
The Uni and the union are entitled to express their opinions on Frasers comments, but they were by no means required to enter a formal debate on the truth them, nor would they ever have wanted to. Duffy's call for them to do so is sensationalism, naivety at best. Perhaps the HREOC considered the truth of his claims, decided they were highly contentious at best, and that Fraser had no right to claim otherwise, whatever his personal opinion on the matter. Ultimately the council may have considered the truth of Frasers claims to be beyond their area of expertise to lay judgement on, and decided it it better to view it for what is, a highly contentious, and very possibly dubious, politicised, and by their verdict offensive, claim to truth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
I never made any claims as to what ideal they were PERSONALLY fighting for but what sort of a Dominion they were fighting for and what sort of a nation they were killing and dying for...
|
And was not that Dominion as free of pop music, bubblegum and topless beaches as it was of a non-European immigration policy? Now we have them all. Time stands still for no man, including the immortal Anzacs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
I know some global warming pricks who can tell us the impact this phenoma will have on us 300 years from now? Or astronomers who can predict that an asteroid could plunge into the earth in 500 years based on trajectory, perceived and forecasting.
|
And that's why there is such an emphasis difference between the warm fuzzy social sciences on one hand, and the hard sciences on the other. 150 year predictions are best left for physicists, I bet that asteroid prediction is a hell of a lot more accurate than yours ever will be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
It does have a place but it is not etched in stone obviously.
|
No, perhaps tea leaves though
.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
'LIBERALLY!' AHHHHHHHHHHH! Had to do that!  No prob! Will do!  |
Great.
Jerry