At the time your posts were addictive but I had to send a message!

See above!

What Mike Duffy stated was factually correct whether he wrote it on a blog, this forum or SMH. The refugee debate? I actually did not argue that the treaty did not permit nation jumping. In fact I dismissed that one as a red herring because I agreed with you. Maybe if I just said that I could have saved a big mess.

I would challenge this since Fraser quoted experts in the very fields of psychology (Rushton) which includes crime and IQ. 'Argumentum ad verecundium' is not always a fallacy if a qualified third source is quoted in one's argument. Of course this debated in itself but it is a defence. Now where I am wrong is I may not accept this defence if an opponent used it because it is debated. Now that is not fair.

Now where one may get Fraser on a long shot is on the 'Appeal to Authority' because his sources are disputed thought the IQ scores or not which is the long shot problem but my interest in Fraser is his being able to present a non-violent view without sanction.

His claims were correct because they were factually true from what I could tell not because you could not prove them wrong.

I was appealing to 'tradition?' I was merely commenting on historical facts. I did not argue that something was necessarily correct because it was fought for in history. I leave that up to the person reading the article.

Even though this is true...

1) I did not dismiss any credible arguments based on this...
2) You introduced an opinion on why you felt Australians should pay for the upkeep of refugees Jerry.

Once that debate turned into an exchange of opinions and moral positions, I felt no need to avoid introducing such a point.

However, you are correct! I do resort to attacks myself! Hell I just told Patrick that he is a nutcase! Hmmmm....I suppose I should change my ways of debating! Maybe time for a new way of thinking. I cannot jump on others for ad hominem if I call other posters nutcases. Seriously effects the credibility!

I believe the term is forecasting based on a pattern? A slippery slope means an inevitable event must follow from another; I admit this pattern can be changed. Maybe forecasting is not etched in stone but it can be an effective tool when deteriming the results of certain pattern trends.

On second thought maybe I should have engaged you more then I did on those things instead of going in circles. If I agreed with a point that i did not contend I could have shortened these battles considerably.

I agreed to 'conventions?' My memory must be failing me?

Maybe you have a point. Maybe my code of fallacy is so complex and even self-serving at times that I should disregard it and merely debate the issues as the rubes do!? My above defences are reasonable for my use of those things but would I allow those defences for others? I do not know so maybe it is time to change the MO!

Yes, lets do that! No more fallacy crap and no more belittling others unless they deserve it. Maybe you could make this offer to Daisym for me by PM? I admit I do miss testing my arguments in battle against her, she is a worthy opponent.

I will change my entire system...maybe you two have a point. However, I reserve the right to insult Patrick or any other troll at will!

That actually bothered me because I like to think I am somewhat bright and putting me in that idiots category did offend me. This guy could not form a thought if they implanted Einsteins brain into his head.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Regarding the refugees, I guess we have different ideas on how the international community should manage them. I've given my reasons why I feel allowing nation-skipping is a sound humanitarian policy.

Secondly, quoting Rushton is akin to quoting Michael Moore. A lot of his academic peers don't view him seriously, and it seems most of his supporters are grantees of the Pioneer Fund, over which he presides. His findings, like Michael Moores, are highly disputed, and subject to ridicule, such as this by his evol. psych. peer Barash:

And that's the tip of the iceberg.

Has he been sanctioned yet? He refused to apologise to the local Sudanese as the HRC suggested, yet has kept his job (despite fucking up), got to broadcast his personal views nationally through a number of media channels, and is yet to face any charges or overt punishment whatsoever.I'm starting to think he probably never will.

You or Duffy believing them, or me failing to disprove them beyond all doubt, doesn't move them beyond the speculative. Fraser got himself in a pickle, whilst handing the uni VC a get-out-of-jail-free pass, by fucking up. I put a lot of light on the situation either you had ignored or glossed over, and it showed Duffy up for what he is, a tabloid salesman in a cheap suit.

It is a fact that the Anzacs fought prior to Australia becoming multicultural, but not necessarily in the belief it would remain so, or that it should. I could use the same flawed logic to claim the Anzacs fought for an Australia free of pop music, bubble-gum and topless beaches.

Whatever, it was completely irrelevent to the debate. I don't dismiss your opinions on the grounds you lack citizenship.

Calling the Rev a nutcase is an understatement, I personally would have used a much harsher expression. There are times when even ad hominems have a worthy purpose.

150 years? I'd liken it more to astrology.

I would suggest an adjustment, not an overhaul. Complete politeness is for choir-boys whereas taking-the-piss can be fun, gives the forum some much needed colour, especialy when dealing with nutcases like Paddy. I just hope you come to debate the issues a little more liberally, and without resorting to the fallacy claims so often. If so I'll PM Daisym and tell her you're missing the love.

That actually bothered me because I like to think I am somewhat bright and putting me in that idiots category did offend me.[/quote]

Hence the apology, I hope you accept it.

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.

It also would not surprise me if some of Rushtoms supports 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.

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!

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.

'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?

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...

In my defence we were exchanging opinions and some moral jockeying. The debate was pretty well non-existant at that point.

I agree.

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.

It does have a place but it is not etched in stone obviously.

'LIBERALLY!' AHHHHHHHHHHH! Had to do that! No prob! Will do!

I do accept it but out of all the insults that one actually hurt!

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.

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.

That was just the funniest one, do the google if you want to see (many) more rational, academic rebuttals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, perhaps tea leaves though .

Great.

Jerry

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!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

I don't follow Union but I've never heard a part Maori playing for the Springboks, and I've never heard of Tatu Van Hanen.

Is he one of Jack Van Tongeren's mates?

The problem with truth as a defence, what he has instead is arguably, as a good many of Rushton's peers are concerned, pseudo-science. The HREOC aren't in the business of judging on highly contentious academic issues, and George Newhouse can point to the dubious and contended nature of Frasers comments. Here's the statement that's landed him in the shit:

This is a highly generalized and contentious claim to truth, it is not merely "promoting a view" as you put it. I'm pretty sure someone of George Newman's intelligence could have found enough historical examples out of Africa and elsewere where Black populations had expanded without a marked increase in crime, violence and other social problems, to swamp the HREOC tribunal with.

Also, given the highly generalized nature of the claim this isn't a quote Fraser can point out from an early 20th century text or whatever, which makes the following statement by his buddies:

..seem like a crock of shit too. Academic hypotheses, or ones worth their weeight, are rarely as generalized as the comments Fraser has dug his hole with, conversely they are almost always marked by conservatism, and hesitancy. The offending statement is nothing of the sort, and I'm sure George Newman had a variety of examples to choose from in disproving Frasers massively over-generalized claim.

In other words, if you are going to make statements that are going to offend some group of people, you better make sure you know what you are talking about, be relatively objective, and preferably back yourself up with credible research, not contentious, dubious ones. Alternatively, you should make it clear that you are merely promoting your personal view, not something "experience practically everywhere in the world" is telling us.

So sorry Frank, I must admit in further reflection of Frasers statement, I'm actually less surprised by the HREOC ruling, and less concerned with its ramifications for free speech in Australia.

Given the number of critiques I came across, that must have taken you a fucking long time, more than I will ever give.

You're putting the cart before the horse. These issues should be debated in academia with some form of consensus reached before academics go public with claims to truth, not dickhead academics making outlandish generalized statements with media dickheads demanding impromptu public debates in innapropriate forums to decide the matter to save their dumb asses and sell a few more newspapers.

Well, he's most likely presenting it in good faith. Unfortunately what he has done is make a wildly generalised, historically misleading, and racially offensive public statement on a controversial topic, while failing to check it as merely his personal view.

There are precious few resources available for many areas of the social sciences, psychology, pro-multiculturalist projects included, and buckets of internal politics involved, he's hardly the only one. And the palatability of research findings has always presented complications for funding. Admittedly, controversial race research probably doesn't attract much of what is out there, but given that Rushton's methodology, lack of fieldwork and interpretation of other's work have been roundly critiqued by his peers, I'm not surprised.

Merely pointed it out? Read between the lines Frank, the implied criticism of the usual suspects for not entering the debate is clear as daylight, he signs off calling for "less moralising, more facts" after imploring that Fraser critics failed to "argue the facts with him" when it is naive to think they could have, should have, or would have. He's a newspaper salesman.

Yesterdays events are always viewed in the flavour of the day, and yes the inconsistencies and are glossed over. What can be said though is a lot of Australian immigrants from New Guinea, Singapore, Malaysia, China, the Philippines, South Korea etc. are as thankful for the allied effort as us whites are. Because we helped these people be rid of their Japanese imperialist masters. We did more than just protect our white dominion, we directly helped our non-white brothers.

It won't be the militant WN herd who bring about the changes, it will be ordinary Australians. What I don't get is why your lot assume the many Australians who are not concerned with non-Causasian rates approaching a comfortable and colourful 10% will feel the same way as they approach the 25-33% range. Relax, because barring a massive, unstoppable influx from Indonesia in the millions it will never even approach becoming the majority you so fear it will.

Jerry

Since the HREOC is not in the business of judging contentious academic issues how can they judge the motive behind Fraser's claims? If they did not examine the research how can they make such a determination? Answer? They cannot nor is it their mandate to do so because truth is no defence.

Could have but did not to the best of my knowledge! On the other hand! One could argue that blacks are more prone to criminal behaviour then whites and Asians hence could be and have been a crime risk wherever they go...I believe the following was included in Fraser's article if I am not mistaken...

I emphasize at the outset that enormous variability exists within each of the populations on many of the traits to be discussed. Because distributions substantially overlap, with average differences amounting to between 4 and 34 percent, it is highly problematic to generalize from a group average to a particvular individual.

Nonetheless, as I hope to show, significant racial variation exists, not only in crime but also in other traits that predispose to crime, including testosterone, brain size, temperament, and cognitive ability.The global nature of the racial pattern in crime is shown in data collated from INTERPOL using the 1984 and 1986 yearbooks. After analyzing information on nearly 100 countries, I reported, in the 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, that African and Caribbean countries had double the rate of violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries, and three times more than did countries in the Pacific Rim. Averaging over the three crimes and two time periods, the figures per 100,000 population were, respectively, 142, 74, and 43.

I have corroborated these results using the most recent INTERPOL yearbook (1990). The rates of murder, rape, and serious assault per 100,000 population reported for 23 predominantly African countries, 41 Caucasian countries, and 12 Asian countries were: for murder, 13, 5, and 3; for rape, 17, 6, and 3; and for serious assault, 213, 63, and 27. Summing the crimes gave figures per 100,000, respectively, of 243, 74, and 33. The gradient remained robust over contrasts of racially homogeneous countries in northeast Asia, central Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa, or of racially mixed but predominantly black or white/Amerindian countries in the Caribbean and Central America. In short, a stubborn pattern exists worldwide that requires explanation.

-Dr. Philipe J. Rushton - Race and crime: an international dilemma. Rushton, J. Philippe - Society, Jan-Feb 1995 v32 n2

It should also be noted that black folks tend to be overrepresented in American crime statistics as well...

For example in 2000 blacks made up 12.32% of the United States population yet consisted of 43.91% of the prison population. The FBI Uniform Crime States showed that in 2001 blacks made up 12% of the population yet were responsible for 51.4% of the nations murders. In fact according to the American Sociological Association more black men in America have served jailed time then black men who have earned degrees or served in the military.

Prof. Fraser who is well versed in these statistics had fair reason to make the comment he did whether controversial or not. Now maybe the conclusions are worthy of debate and maybe the causation is worthy of debate but I would say that based on the above he had fair reason and good faith reasons to make the claim that he did.

Those generalised comments did seem to have some support as shown above? Maybe the issue should be debated? Oh and it is George Newhouse not Newman.

There is no law that academics must condult one another before going public with their conclusions. If that were the case most research long exposed would be secret today. I know of very few scientists who completely agree with the views of their colleagues. What they can do is critique the exposed works and even offer to debate the works in question.

Second, You can insult these people all you wish, tell me they dickheads and accuse them of every ethical misconduct that you wish. I merely defend a man's right to offer a view in good faith without being dragged before a tribunal.

Then if he made wildly incorrect comments in good faith he should be corrected instead of dragged to a tribunal. If done in good faith that would mean that he intended no harm but offered a conclusion based on his study.

Merely being critiqued by his peers does not make the man a fraud but if the man's views are so incorrect then Fraser should be easily vanquished in a debate.

However, it appears that Fraser's opposition are more interested in shutting him up then vanquishing him in such a debate. I am more then willing to see such a debate go forward...

I do not read between the lines I tend to stick with facts when possible and the facts as they stand support Duffy's claims...