Republicans are quite simply un-American

[icanhelp1]

The original poster wrote, "Americans believe in Freedom of Speech, we believe in Freedom of the Press."

I am a Democrat, born and bred. I have only voted for two Republicans in my life. I also believe in unlimited political debate. It seems to me that those on the left are most active in limiting political debate.

In April 1969 the Harvard Educational Review published an article by Berkeley Professor Arthur Jensen who argued that little could be done to increase IQ scores and educational achievement. Since then his argument has been proven by the failures of Head Start and No Child Left Behind to close the race gap.

For the rest of his career at Berkeley Professor Jensen had his classes interrupted, he received death threats. He sometimes required police protection.

In September 1971 Professor Richard Herrnstein of Harvard had an article published in the Atlantic in which he anticipated assertions he was later to combine with Charles Murray in The Bell Curve. The next spring the new left organization Students for a Democratic Society held an convention at Harvard with the expressed purpose of getting Professors Jensen and Herrnstein fired. Fortunately, SDS failed, and the two professors continued to spread their theories far and wide, aided by the prestige of the universities at which they taught.

Unfortunately, the those on the left had established a precedent for suppressing opinions they dislike. Currently Charles Murray, and those who agree with him, are often prevented from speaking at college campuses.

Interesting, I'll read that BELL CURVE opinion.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your rights end where theirs begin.

Problem is that's a 2 way street, and your position is that non-religious folks have a RIGHT to violate religious folks freedom of religion.

They don't.

Besides that, the logic you're using here is exactly the logic that was used to rationalise racial segregation.

No, it wasn't.

Racial segregation was a GOVERNMENT policy.

Government =/= citizen.

The government doesn't have a right to religious freedom, citizens do.

If your religious convictions get in the way of doing your job, you should find another job.

Only if you're working for the government or someone else who wants that kind of policy for their company.

As a private citizen who works for himself I can do my job and keep my religious values in tact. I have the right to discriminate against who I want for whatever reason I want. Customers and employees alike.

And I do.

Not to mention Christ never said one word against homosexuality.

What's that got to do with anything I said?? It doesn't.

 

[BotanyBoy]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/1997/01/the-bell-curve-flattened.html
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=225294
https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691028989/inequality-by-design
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/262014
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html

Look at that....a bunch of uber leftist and known propaganda outlets who's world views are founded on the concept that everyone is equal and exactly the same to the point they deny biology have "refuted" the bell curve concept.

Despite the fact that it's observable reality otherwise as substantiated by how much they bitch about inequity and how terrible it is to allow anyone the freedom to succeed, incessantly.

 

[phrodeau]

Instead of throwing that at me, read it yourself and explain it to me in your own words. If you cannot do that you do not understand it yourself.

The Bell Curve makes three assertions. First, intelligence is the most important factor in determining academic and economic success, as well as other favorable outcomes in life. Second, it is primarily determined by genes. Third, people of some races tend to be more intelligent than people of other races.

You do not need to read The Bell Curve to know that all of that is true. Just consider the people you have known during your life, and think about what has happened to them.

Charles Murray disagrees with your assertions. https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html

 

[The_Trouvere]

Charles Murray disagrees with your assertions. https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html

I just read that article. Where does Charles Murray disagree with me?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Charles Murray disagrees with your assertions. https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html

Then Charles Murray is living in the same "everyone is equal in all ways!" leftist unicorn fantasy land that most "progressive" folks live in.

 

[badbabysitter]

No one has ever refuted The Bell Curve. Anyone who has taught in public school knows that some students learn faster and with less effort than others. He learns that what the fast learners can learn the slow learners cannot learn, regardless of effort. He learns that Orientals tend to be more intelligent than whites who tend to be more intelligent than Negroes.

It's hard to refute something which has never been put up for peer review

but it is telling that the author isnt confident enough to do so

 

[icanhelp1]

I just read that article. Where does Charles Murray disagree with me?

I read it. I'm sure the left will twist the opinion to be racist, and the globalist will refute that different genes have different results.

 

[needit700]

and your mother is a

Whore

 

[BotanyBoy]

I read it. I'm sure the left will twist the opinion to be racist, and the globalist will refute that different genes have different results.

It's like none of them have looked around and realize not everyone has the same talents at the same levels in the same fields as everyone else.

This is the result of the lefts underlying false assumption that all people are equal in all ways.

It's hard to refute something which has never been put up for peer review

but it is telling that the author isnt confident enough to do so

Badbabysitter seems to think without being put up for peer review would somehow validate the idea that people aren't equal in all ways???

Most folks who have the ability to pull their heads out of their ass's seem to just accept that as a reality.

I wonder if badbabysitter thinks all people are equal in all ways?

 

[JackLuis]

The ‘most dangerous politician of my lifetime’ may not be Donald Trump: Robert Reich

He’s maybe the most dangerous politician of my lifetime. He’s helped transform the Republican Party into a cult, worshiping at the altar of authoritarianism. He’s damaged our country in ways that may take a generation to undo. The politician I’m talking about, of course, is Mitch McConnell.

Trump is like herpes, Mitch is Cancer!

 

[icanhelp1]

The ‘most dangerous politician of my lifetime’ may not be Donald Trump: Robert Reich



Trump is like herpes, Mitch is Cancer!

ROBBY REICH LMFAO

All you need to know is U Cal/Berkeley= a lefty loon seed pod and he's the number one pod.

 

[phrodeau]

I just read that article. Where does Charles Murray disagree with me?

In the interview portion.

 

[BotanyBoy]

ROBBY REICH LMFAO

All you need to know is U Cal/Berkeley= a lefty loon seed pod and he's the number one pod.

That explains why Jack Louis is a fan. He's been pretty open about his support for taking the USA down the Soviet/Cuban/N. Korean path.

 

[KeithD]

The ‘most dangerous politician of my lifetime’ may not be Donald Trump: Robert Reich



Trump is like herpes, Mitch is Cancer!

Trump also isn't either a career politician or a Republican (really) and McConnell is.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I just read that article. Where does Charles Murray disagree with me?

In the interview portion.

Excuse me. I read the interview. I did not see where Murray disagreed with me. Explain in your own words where he did, or at the very least copy and paste his words where he did.

 

[The_Trouvere]

It's hard to refute something which has never been put up for peer review

but it is telling that the author isnt confident enough to do so

A college professor or journalist giving an honest peer review of The Bell Curve would jeopardize his career.

When people say that The Bell Curve has been "decisively refuted" they often mention Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. Has that book been peer reviewed?

 

[YDB95]

A college professor or journalist giving an honest peer review of The Bell Curve would jeopardize his career.

Do you really mean "honest" here, or do you mean "supportive"? Because the way I read your comment, it sounds like you're arguing any peer review couldn't help but support Murray's methodology and conclusions. And by that logic, we shouldn't even have peer reviews in the first place.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Do you really mean "honest" here, or do you mean "supportive"? Because the way I read your comment, it sounds like you're arguing any peer review couldn't help but support Murray's methodology and conclusions. And by that logic, we shouldn't even have peer reviews in the first place.

No, it's just the obvious doesn't really need peer reviewing.

 

[YDB95]

No, it's just the obvious doesn't really need peer reviewing.

Maybe not, but the way you're characterising Murray's work really isn't accurate. What he argued is nowhere near as obvious as you're implying, and it used methodology that not only is absolutely worthy of peer reviewing, but has also been called into question at best in some of the articles I linked to (just for starters).

 

[The_Trouvere]

Do you really mean "honest" here, or do you mean "supportive"? Because the way I read your comment, it sounds like you're arguing any peer review couldn't help but support Murray's methodology and conclusions. And by that logic, we shouldn't even have peer reviews in the first place.

I will re write my assertion.

A college professor or a journalist who agreed with The Bell Curve and who said so would probably risk his career.

 

[phrodeau]

Instead of throwing that at me, read it yourself and explain it to me in your own words. If you cannot do that you do not understand it yourself.

The Bell Curve makes three assertions. First, intelligence is the most important factor in determining academic and economic success, as well as other favorable outcomes in life. Second, it is primarily determined by genes. Third, people of some races tend to be more intelligent than people of other races.

You do not need to read The Bell Curve to know that all of that is true. Just consider the people you have known during your life, and think about what has happened to them.

I have bolded two of your assertions.

Stephen Jay Gould had a specific critique of The Bell Curve which dealt with those two assertions, which he framed as: "Intelligence must be reducible to a single number. Intelligence must be primarily genetically based." He also criticized two other assertions he saw in the book.

Here is the relevant portion of the interview:

Skeptic: Let me go back to Gould's four points. Is there any one of those that you think is not a fair and accurate statement of what you said?

Murray: All four of them.

 

[YDB95]

I will re write my assertion.

A college professor or a journalist who agreed with The Bell Curve and who said so would probably risk his career.

Not if s/he was a tenured professor, and certainly not if the journalist was willing to work for Fox News or the Washington Times or the like.

But let's say you're right about professors. To me, then, the question would be, Is this person's career in trouble because s/he agreed with a racist book, or because s/he endorsed an argument known to be based on shoddy research and methodology? If it's the latter, then I don't see why a professor shouldn't run into some trouble - we've got a right to expect higher standards from the experts.

And if it's the former? Well, Eric Rasmussen still has a job.

 

[icanhelp1]

That explains why Jack Louis is a fan. He's been pretty open about his support for taking the USA down the Soviet/Cuban/N. Korean path.

Peer review = 2+2=4 but let me go ask someone to make sure LMAO!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Maybe not, but the way you're characterising Murray's work really isn't accurate. What he argued is nowhere near as obvious as you're implying, and it used methodology that not only is absolutely worthy of peer reviewing, but has also been called into question at best in some of the articles I linked to (just for starters).

It really is, it is that obvious and no it's not.

Yes, all well known outlets of radical leftist propaganda and perspectives. Radical lefties tend to be the ONLY people who question it. That's because it goes against the whole equity narrative and it recognizes individuals outside of the collective or what the collective has provided for them, and it rustles their Jimmies something serious.

The rest of the world says, "Yea....and water is wet!" then they go on with their life perfectly happy and secure in the knowledge that some people are smarter than they are, some are more physically apt, some are more creative, all in various ways, and others are not.

I have bolded two of your assertions.

Stephen Jay Gould had a specific critique of The Bell Curve which dealt with those two assertions, which he framed as: "Intelligence must be reducible to a single number. Intelligence must be primarily genetically based." He also criticized two other assertions he saw in the book.

Here is the relevant portion of the interview:

Skeptic: Let me go back to Gould's four points. Is there any one of those that you think is not a fair and accurate statement of what you said?

Murray: All four of them.

And did he support that with anything?? Especially the genetics part....because pretty much everything about everyone as an individual is primarily genetic, why not intelligence.

Peer review = 2+2=4 but let me go ask someone to make sure LMAO!

And if you can't find one from a university that I approve of then it's a lie and nobody REALLY knows what 2+2 is!!

No shit....you'd think the fact that so much inequity exists might clue some of them in, but nope. Just dock the Asian/Jewish/White kids on their SAT/ACT scores and redistribute those points to the black kids for equity sake like Harvard. PROOF that all people are equal in all ways!! LOL

Remember this is the same group of people who think men can be women and have babies if they identify as a woman because gender is a social construct and Biology is a dogwhistle for fascist transphobic Nazi scum!!!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/186ef25686f0f8cb899cd31c7105555e/tenor.gif?itemid=13191169