Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
I am open to that! You are probably correct about people not knowing about the main players in this debate. If you ask the average Aussie who Tatu Van Hanen was they would likely guess a part-Maori Afrikaner who plays for the Springboks!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
Or most organisations do not want to fund studies that could end up leading to the conclusion that not all men are created equal. This would be a rather nasty blow to egalitarian multiculturalism. Just so you know I do not recall the Pioneer Fund ever cutting someone off for offering environmental causes for Intelligence Quotient deviations for information sake.
Let's face facts studies that delve into human personality differences and measure heredity vs: environment causes can make general egalitarian thinkers uncomfortable. The fact that people like Fraser can face race hate tribunals for promoting a view based on this alleged 'pseudo-science' with truth being no defence speaks volumes to me...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
That was just the funniest one, do the google if you want to see (many) more rational, academic rebuttals.
|
I have read it all! I am aware of Brash, Gould, Turkheimer and all of their positions. But lets face it! If you are right and the claims of people like Rushton and Fraser are dubious pseudo-science and shitty theory to paraphrase Brash then lets forego the HREOC tribunals and open a debate on the issue! Should be a simple victory for the diversity-monger crowd if you are correct. I am willing to see such a debate happen! I am not the one who wants to shut the opposition up using tribunals and threats of court action.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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?
|
Yes, I would actually. If he has a genuine belief that his positions were true, that again would meet my personal standard of truth being a defence. If he truly believes that Rushton was correct then he made the claims in good faith.
If the HREOC could prove beyond doubt that he presented this in bad faith, At least I would understand the reason for a tribunal hearing. Personally I believe the HREOC should be disbanded so I do not support these tribunals period.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
Yes, I do!
THE PIONEER FUND
RON KAUFMAN
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream...Q/pioneer.html
"There are precious few financial resources available for race research. Most big foundations have been scared off," says Rushton, whose controversial research focuses on the heritability of personality based on racial differences (The Scientist, May 14, 1990, page 17).
Rushton has been receiving Pioneer Fund money for almost six years. He says research exploring racial differences is only in its infancy, and so this small, New York City-based foundation remains the only place to obtain grants. Rushton says that when "political correctness" crosses over from the realm of organized discussion to inhibitory actions, such as a funding ban, all researchers should be concerned.
As well the Pioneer Fund continued to fund Jensen, Lynn and Rushton even though their research illustrated that northeast Asians scored highest on the Intelligence Quotient tests by a small margin. So this is a hardly a white supremacist organisation. They did, afterall, appoint a guy who once offered a theory that IQ was 50% environment and that northeast Asian IQ scores are the highest to their head chair position.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
Duffy did not call for them to debate he merely pointed out that they chose not to do so. I would agree with you if he said
"The university did not meets it's obligation to debate Fraser."
If he said that! I would have agreed with you. But he did not say that and ultimately he was correct in his position and statements
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
Allow me to explain my position. The Australian ANZACS fought for a white nationalist dominion under its banner. In 1919 Prime Minister Billy Hughes declared to parliament that
‘White Australia was theirs.’ He even made a reference to the White Australia the soldiers died for in his speech to parliament. Of course this speech took place after Australia resisted the Japanese effort to place a doctrine of racial equality into the League of Nations charter at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.
As well in 1941 Prime Minister Curtin made the proclamation that Australia was to serve as an outpost for the British ‘race.’
The Aussie ANZACS knew that they were fighting for a racialist dominion and nation. They had no reason to believe the racialist status quo of the state would change since the first actual ‘reform’
(If you insist on calling it that) of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 or the White Australia Party did not take place until two years after WWII. The first second reform came in 195o when Asian students were admitted to study largely due to the Colombo Plan. Non-whites were not even permitted to become citizens until 1957 and even then they had to have 15 years residency.
Even though it is true that I am not privy to the thoughts of Aussie ANZACS from decades ago, based on the above I believe it is fair to say that they were not fighting for the creation of a multicultural love state, they were certainly not defending one. Maybe I am mistaken but I stand by it.
As well try to understand the motive behind the article. I am personally tired of Australian anti-racists hijacking the ANZAC legacy as a symbol of their cause. So far they have hijacked the ANZAC legacy, Eureka Stockade and probably Preparation H will be next to support their bankrupt cause.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
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.
|
I understand this! If forecasts could not be changed or mitigating factors could not change the projections we evil WN would stop fighting as hard as we do!