Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
First I have to question Mr. Von Doussa analysis of the evidence presented since he is a lawyer and the area of psychology is out of his area of expertise! What is that again? argumentum..er...ad verecundiam?  |
It's out of my area of expertise too, as it is Fraser's, but I can still spot it for a clear overgeneralisation. If he had support for his statement, and I mean "sure-fire" "all experience in the world tells us" support, the offending one, he would have got off on "genuine academic purpose" grounds.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
Sorry I could not resist that one! Give me that freebie! It was meant in humour!  I believe Fraser should have chosen his wording a little more carefully but I stand by my opinion that a man should not be dragged before a race hate quasi-judicial tribunal for possibility overstating something. |
And I'd agree, were it not offensive.
Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
I was thinking of the other publication written by Fraser.
|
Again I'm not sure what papers he submitted in his defence, but I would be very surprised if they supported his overgeneralization.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Frank
My point is even if was found to be in reasonably 'good faith' he still would have been on the hook! Clearly being wrong even in good faith is not a defence. This is not right in my view!
|
Had his views been academically sound they would have been deemed to have been made in good faith.
Now I accept you don't agree with it, because you have a more liberal concept of free speech than I do. If what he said wasn't wrong or offensive I'd have a problem with it. But a minor limitation of free speech to encourage people not to make overgeneralised racially offensive statements, and a mild form of punishment when they do, is just not a concern for me.
Quote:
|
If someone is wrong? Debate them, expose them, correct them but to drag them before a tribunal that can lead to federal court?
|
Firstly, just how, where and when is this public debate to take place, who adjudicates it, is a result decided upon, and if so when and by whom? If the WN crowd branch-stack it should we accept the result. Should we have a poll on Lateline like the election debates? I've got lot's of questions about just how a fair debate is going to somehow come about.
Secondly, his statements were not only wrong, they were racially offensive. There's no law against being wrong.
Quote:
Come on...this is not the Soviet Union for goodness sake.
Of course I do not agree with such restrictions. A reasonable restriction is incitement to murder, genocide or yelling fire in a theatre for the hell of it!
|
It's a very minor limitation on freedom of speech to encourage people not to make racially offensive over-generalisations as fact in public forums such as newspapers. I don't have a problem with it.
Quote:
|
Expressing an ideological view even if incorrect and offensive should not qualify as a rational restriction of free speech.
|
Why not?
Quote:
That belief was theorised by Flynn in relation to 19th century Euro-whites on projections on what they may have scored on current Intelligence Quotient tests. However there is a non-environmental explanation for improved IQ scores from the early 1900's to 1989 for African Americans. This could be attributed to increased levels of European ancestry along with a superior environment...
Professor Richard Lynn claims that the modern African American population contains 25% European genetics in the ole pool which progressively increased from the 1800's to the late 1900's. This is how he explains the standard deviation between African-American blacks and Sub Saharan African blacks.
Even as early as 1915 Dr. G.W. Ferguson uncovered that mixed race blacks performed better then full blooded negroes...yet continued to score lower then whites on mental aptitude tests. Just to note the first IQ test was not developed until 1905 by Alfred Binet. This become known as the Binet/Simon Intelligence Scale.
Further evidence that IQ is not entirely environmental derives from the famous Minnesota transracial adoption studies...
Nobody denies that environment plays a part but it is apparent to me that heredity plays a large part as well.
|
I agree genetics are not completely irrelevent, although I don't see them as relevent as you. Consider that African American's, despite supposedly having less than 25% European genetics, are already averaging 15 more IQ points than Europeans did 100 years ago, I think that shows environment is by far the dominant factor.
See where I'm going? Every couple of generations, a sparrows fart in evolutionary terms, they bridge the gap. The lag is mostly because of historical differences in environmental factors.
Quote:
The following is not etched in stone so I wil concede that now but it is possible that Sub-Saharan African IQ's may not be able to improve...
CHICAGO—Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.
It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.
Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.
What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.
Web sites and magazines promoting white “racialism” quickly seized on Dr. Lahn’s suggestive scientific snapshot. One magazine that blames black and Hispanic people for social ills hailed his discovery as “the moment the antiracists and egalitarians have dreaded.”
SOURCE: Scientist’s Study of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash - Antonio Regalado, Wall Street Journal, Jun 16, 2006
Again nothing etched in stone but you probably can see where I am going?
|
I suggest you brief Andrew Fraser on the finer points of that last sentence article before he makes any comments on Dr Lahn's work.
Quote:
|
Yeah like accusing a business man of being a baby raper would be grounds for civil litigation. There is nothing in the U.S. that punishes the expression of ideological views even if mistaken.
|
Well Australia may not be the US (thank Christ), but it's certainly not the USSR either. Fraser has hardly been sent to a gulag, he's been asked to apologise over his racially offensive over-generalisations, and IMO it's only his stubborn refusal to do so that may see him in the courts. He made an incorrect and offensive public statement, so what's the big deal with expecting an apology?
Quote:
Sometime down the road I plan on doing a blog entry on this very subject! In fact I will re-write what Fraser said in his letter to the Sun in a manner that should garner much love in the WN movement and piss off the racial-McCarthyists who will be angry because they cannot punish me for my views!  Though in Canada I may get it anyway!
|
Again, you should be Fraser's spokesperson.
Jerry