Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Elfification

One of the pillars of modern American liberalism is make-believe, i. e., wishing makes it so. Or, even, naming makes it so. Or, if that's not quite enough, making A look like B makes A become B. One is reminded of the story of Prince Bumpo, if you were lucky enough to read the Doctor Dolittle books before they were bowdlerized. Anyhow, to make another literary reference, our modern-day Moreaus aren't into converting lions and squirrels and cattle into men, but are content to turn men into women and vice-versa.  Or, I should say, cut around on the one till they look like the other.  As in my pizza experience related HERE.

Well, over at Westhunt, Greg Cochran sees a lot more potential in this trend than mundane things like turning Bradley into Chelsea. The only question is, when the website finally has its docs in a row (heh), will Obamacare cover elfification? Trollizing? Hobbitmogrification?

Elves, Orcs, and all that

As I understand it, right-thinking people are supposed to act as if men who have undergone ‘sex-change’ surgery are really women. As opposed to crazy.  The thing is, there are other transitions that people may wish to make, and I’m wondering if right-thinking people will soon be expected to honor those people’s new status.  I’m talking about elves.
Surgery can certainly give you pointy ears, and for the moment let’s assume that’s as far as it goes.  Will we be expected to pretend that pointy-eared Americans really are elves?  When they’re in the Army, will grizzled NCOs still ask them if they want to live forever?  Will insurance companies feel compelled to charge them low prices for life insurance and super-high prices for annuities?
Other than an aversion to cold iron, vulnerability to holy names, and possibly being soulless, being an elf doesn’t sound all that bad. The transition is a lark, compared to a sex-change operation.  In the near future, I’m sure that the genome can be edited so that their descendants are born with pointy ears.

74 comments:

  1. The LPGA insist that all their competitors be born female. For shame! Boycott this disgraceful organization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the LPGA lost Nancy Lopez, only lesbians care about it.

      Delete
  2. Eager Young LiberalOctober 22, 2013 at 11:26 PM

    You prove over and over again why nothing you say should be taken seriously. Not only are you an absolutely unqualified and racist anthropologist (or should I say someone who parades as an anthropologist and expects everyone else to call him one), but you now fancy yourself a psychologist. I may not know a lot about psychology but I am smart enough to recognize the work of those better than me. And when they claim that that the people, who you so casually call crazy, have a real claim to another identity, than I am apt to believe them. From what I understand it is a very hard identity crisis, and causes a lot of confusion in an individual, since you go on to make fun of them as if they thought they were elves, it shows what little respect you have for others. It is inappropriate for you to make such a comparrison because those with a gender identity crisis, never stop believing they are human, but you reduce them to something below human. But I guess that fits in with your warped view of anthropology, whoever is not like you is either inferior or a joke, or both. When you have to build yourself up by belittling others, it shows what a pathetic human being, and academic you really are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bwahahahahaha.

      There's no such thing as an "identity crisis." Look down between your legs. What you see determines if you're male or female. Full stop.

      Delete
    2. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

      that determines your sex, but not gender, that is in the mind.

      Delete
    3. No that is horseshit. I am qualified to speak on this. This has been a lie of the left since the pervert Kinsey.

      But let's assume there are people who believe they are in the wrong body. Should we try to help them live in the body they have or surgically mutilate them?

      Listen the elf has a better chance of a full and happy life than the male/female. GC isn't trivializing anything he's pointing out a man isn't a woman and calling him one treating him like one and demanding he use the ladies room is to -nobody's- benefit.

      Delete
    4. Gender is an extension of sex in the same way that nurture is an extension of nature.

      Delete
    5. When Henry Harpending had me made an adjunct professor of anthropology (without even asking), I told him I'd never feel clean again.

      Delete
    6. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM

      TWS: It is not mutilizing, it is making the person who they are in their mind, the person they are on the outside. And he certainly is trivalizing their suffering, and it is to their benefit. They go through the ridicule, the surgery, the treatments for their benefit.

      Delete
    7. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM

      That is because you are a fraud, and you know it

      Delete
    8. Not at all. It's because most anthropologists are silly people, enough so that being called one is kind of embarrassing.


      Delete
    9. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 9:50 PM

      Its only embarrassing when they ressurect ideas of racial inequality that should have stayed dead

      Delete
    10. So if they agree with you they are qualified? Good to know that eliminates all that tiresome credentialing and education. We'll just ask a child who doesn't want his feelings hurt by reality who is qualified. That is marvelous.

      Until '73 homosexuality was a paraphilia now because social attitudes change it is not. However, it remains the very definition of a maladaptive condition. Yet the reality of that offends liberals and suddenly we're calling apples orangutangs.

      As Father McGirl warned me many years ago, "Son, the seminary is no place for young Christians anymore." I thought he meant morality now I suspect he was warning against fuzzy-headed willful ignorance as well.

      Delete
    11. I have prepared a quibcag to take some of the sting out of being an anthropologist:
      http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/10/quote-quibcag-of-day.html

      Delete
    12. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM

      TWS, he hasnt had any education thats the point. Yea and blacks were seen as farm equipment, and then nonwhites in general were seen as racially inferior. As for seminaries, that is where the true faith is actually practiced, unlike the rest of the country where people claim to be Chrsitian but never practice any form of Christian love the rest rest of the week.

      Delete
  3. I am smart enough to recognize the work of those better than me.

    Even if they are only adjunct professors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 3:50 PM

      If they are qualified, which the author (not of the blog but of the post) clearly is not.

      Delete
    2. I can't imagine the venue, but if Eager were ever to meet Greg Cochran in person, and tell him he's unqualified, I'd REALLY like to be there to witness what would follow.

      Delete
    3. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 4:34 PM

      Frankly, it wouldn't matter, he would still be as unqualified as before the encounter.

      Delete
  4. This post isn't saying it's not a very hard identity crisis. But it's a tongue and cheek reducto ad absurdum of popular sexual opinion. I actually feel bad for trannies...well, the legit ones that have psychological problems (crazy), as opposed to the snowflake tumblr crowd. Did you see the story about the European woman who decided to have assisted suicide because her attempt to transform into a man left her feeling like a "monster"? And we're the bad guys for wanting to work on he brain issues instead of doing major body modifications? There's no such thing as a transsexual or FtM or MtF, at least not until you can implant working organs from one person to another and have it functional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 4:47 PM

      I don't think there is anything tongue in cheek about it, because like any other sort of identity crisis it is about how the person sees themselves. It would be the equivalent of comparing a religious conversion to becoming a jedi with a plastic lightsaber.

      I did not see that story, I might have to look into it. From what I understand there is a lot that goes into the process, not just on the hormonal and physical side but therapy before, during and after. It is not an in and out surgery that is done on a whim in an afternoon. Maybe they are not able to be fully, sexually male of female, but at least the outside matches how they feel inside, which for them seems to be a step in the right direction.

      Now I am not in favor of children undergoing the process, because what kid isnt uncomfortable in their own body. But for those who have a continual feeling of being different, of course. It in no way hurts society to allow these people do something with their own bodies, so I am all for giving them peace of mind. We all experience an identity crisis sometime in our lives, and I do not see it as my business to condemn those who have a different crisis than myself.

      Delete
    2. No amount of surgery can change a Y chromosome into an X chromosome and all the behavioral and trait differences that entails.

      Delete
    3. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM

      The issue is not chromosomes, it is how they identify themselves. While surgery cannot make them fully male or fully female, it helps them live a life where they feel more uniform.

      Delete
    4. Of course the issue is chromosomes. The political aspect of the trans movement is simply part of the greater movement to make all natural and "given" distinctions between different things meaningless.

      The trans movement is just an aspect of feminism - the ideology of making male and female indistinguishable..

      Delete
    5. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 7:36 PM

      Clearly they think there is a distinction, otherwise they would not want to change.

      Delete
  5. @ eager young liberal

    There are only two qualifications for a good position:

    a) evidence
    b) argument

    Anything else is just rainbows, fairy dust and unicorn farts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 5:47 PM

      The evidence is that the author diminishes the plight of people who have gender identity crisis. The argument for their suffering is their own stories.

      Delete
    2. What those afflicted want to do is shove their affliction in others' faces and force us to embrace them. Look, it's very clear that this sort of things just just sexual fetishism and the afflicted individuals are expressing something that is categorically similar to a foot fetish.

      I don't bear them any ill-will for their fetish - just don't force it on us in public.

      Delete
    3. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 7:44 PM

      So because they want the world to identify them the way they identify themselves, that means they are shoving something in your face? It is not about about fetish, because the goal is not sexual, it is an identity. The fact that you dont want them to express themselves in public, does mean you mean them ill will. Forcing them to live with what makes you most comfortable, and not them, is ill will.

      Delete
    4. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM

      Since my last post doesnt seem to be going through I will redo it, so no need to post that one since it will only be repetative.

      The way you speak of them reminds me of how gays were told to act for years, just assimilate for our benefit. So they did and they denied their identity, and it caused many deep emotional stess, and many harmed themselves. So our their lives more important than your comfort? Are differences so deplorable to you?

      It is part of their identity so it deserves to be within public view. Expressing who you are to the outside world is not shoving it in others faces. It is not a fetish, because the primary purpose is not sexual, it is about self identity. And by calling them perverts, that is in itself ill will. To say they should hide themselves is to tell them to conform, to be ashamed of who they are.

      Delete
    5. Does all identity deserve to be in public view, or just those you approve? What about someone whose identity is the KKK? Neo-nazis?

      Delete
    6. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 5:44 PM

      I would put that on a much deeper sense of identity than those you brought up, but because of the freedom of speech they are allowed to demonstrate their identity in public as well, even if I dont agree with them

      Delete
    7. How is calling someone "crazy" "diminishing their plight"? Being insane is serious business

      Delete
    8. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM

      No it means they are less than a fully functioning human being.

      Delete
  6. Liberal is just another confused and deluded hipster. He doesn't know $hit from Shinola, but he'll argue till he's blue in the face. Poor, dumb, deluded, hipster idiots that this generation is.

    Gender Identity Crisis, huh?

    If this society wasn't so far gone they'd laugh this kid back into the university that churned him out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 9:07 PM

      I am not confused, I am very clear about where I stand and why I stand there. I am not deluded because nothing I have said is false. And I am not a hipster, and to use that as an insult/argument shows how inept you are at forming an argument. The fact that young people care about others who are different than themselves is not a negative, but a positive.

      If there was not so much hate left in society they would force you into the shadows your views belong in.

      Delete
  7. Eager Young LiberalOctober 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM

    that determines your sex, but not gender, that is in the mind.
    ____________________________________________

    Exactly, the dysfunction is "in the mind," Thus, the problem is a b-r-a-i-n problem, comprendo? The word "crazy," while not to your liking, nevertheless identifies the seriousness of a problem with the organ of thought, the brain.

    The male thinking himself a female or the female thinking herself a male is not dangerous to others or to themselves as can be others who suffer similar psychic disorders
    such as those who are bi-polar or schizophrenic or anorexic, but all of them have a brain so disordered that their fitness suffers not because they are deaf and can't hear cars approaching them, not because they are blind and cannot see that car about to barrel them down, but because they are c-r-a-z-y, some all the time, some just part of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Are differences so deplorable to you?"

    Re: gays and others you mention.

    I don't know about the other responders, but no, differences are not deplorable to me most of the time. Just realize that there really IS something wrong with the brain of a gay person. It's not their fault so there's no reason to place blame. They have a brain that malfunctions just as we all have organs that malfunction at some point in our lives.

    They don't have a brain that's able to target a productive mate. Instead, that brain targets a member of their own gender. They suffer huge fitness costs because of their brain dysfunction. In short, the target of their desire is no more productive than a hole in a rock would be were they to use it to relieve themselves of sexual tension. It's a kind of crazy, yes, because the brain and the body are at odds and the result is a type of infertility.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As for degrees? Come on, man, you mean you think gc couldn't stand up against a Ph.d in anthro? You gotta be kidding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 10:04 AM

      No they are not crazy, and there is nothing malfunctioning with their brains, that goes for both gays and transgender people. The way you talk about them implies they need to be "fixed", which is horrible. Because while homosexual relations may not be capable of producing offspring, they are in fact a natural occurance all the same.

      And as for Cochran, he has tried to bring back ideas of racial superiority, which should have been left to die out a century ago. It was bad science then and it is bad science now, so yes I think he would be laughed out of a room full of actual anthropologists, and thrown out by anyone who has an ounce of humanity

      Delete
    2. nd as for Cochran, he has tried to bring back ideas of racial superiority

      You're flat out lying. Cochrane has done no such thing. The human species has experiences significant genetic divergence in the past 100k or so years, and this manifest reality is blatantly obvious. Factual difference does nt imply the value judgement "superiority".

      Did you learn to lie like that in seminary class? Or did you manage it all on your own?

      Delete
    3. Eager Young Liberal:

      "Natural occurrence" is a term that is meaningless in terms of whether gays or trans have brain malfunctions.

      If I am born blind or deaf or with a limb malformed, it's a "natural occurrence." However, my eyes were meant to see, my ears to hear, and my legs to walk. Your brain, developed properly, would enable you to target a fertile mate for your sexual and emotional needs. That's why you have a sperm delivery system that, I assume, works. (Your sperm has nothing wrong with it, your penis works, I presume? Yet, all that equipment evolved to deliver the sperm, yet a brain that targets one who has no use for sperm, one who CANNOT use it.)

      The malfunction may have occurred with no interference from man but so too does the measles cause deafness with no help from man.

      "Natural" in discussing these topics is a meaningless term.

      Delete
    4. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 12:07 PM

      Not lying, he flat out claimed that there were intellectual differences among races. Which in itself is a value judgment, even if it is a load of crap. There has not been enough time or isolation for genetic divergence to take place, and anyone who was actually trained in anthropology would know that, which he wasn't so he doesn't. It is not obvious and does not actually exist, anthropologist of the 19th century made such claims but they were proved false and the only people who hold those ideas now are racists looking to justify their hate.

      Delete
    5. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 12:19 PM

      Just to make my above comment clearer, he claimed it not within this post but within his work in general, I point you towards the headhunter article on here and my lengthy comments on why he is horribly wrong.

      Clergy take a vow of poverty, while all of their parts work their brains direct them towards something which cannot reproduce. There is a difference between an organ that does not work properly, as a blind eye, and a brain which draws us towards another.

      Delete
    6. "Not lying, he flat out claimed that there were intellectual differences among races. Which in itself is a value judgment, even if it is a load of crap."

      A numerical difference in IQ scores is a quantitative difference.

      Quantitative differences are not value judgements, although of course Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is relevant.
      Here is an actual value judgement: In my opinion, most people commenting on this thread need to study more applied science and more philosophy of science.
      Here is a quantitative statement: Australian Aborigines have an average IQ more than five points lower than the average IQ of Chinese citizens.

      Delete
    7. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 4:16 PM

      That does not take into account enviornment, genetics, educational systems, or a host of other variables. So your statement is too simple to actually say anything, except give fodder to simple-minded racists.

      Delete
    8. Wait, what? The entire liberal project is to make genetic irrelevant. Did you just say "controlling for genetics, everyone is identical"?

      Delete
    9. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM

      No one said that quote except you...What I said was to make blanket statements of racial intelligence does not take into account a huge amount of factors that play into testable intelligence. That statement is too simple, because it accounts for no other factors. If you brought that kind of statement before any scientist, they would say exactly the same thing, and would not attribute any validity to your "findings". That has nothing to do with any percieved liberal slant, that is a fact.

      Delete
  10. OT:

    Mike Rowe says “We’re lending money we don’t have, to kids who will never be able to pay it back, for jobs that no longer exist. That’s crazy, right? That’s what we’ve been doing for the last forty years.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/23/mike-rowe-of-dirty-jobs-speaks-about-hard-work-how-many-are-following-the-worst-advice-in-the-history-of-the-world/

    Worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  11. EYL.

    There ARE cognitive differences among the races or haven't you been reading science? BTW, Asians score on top, not whites. Does that make you feel better, yet the progs never speak of the Asian-Black gap, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  12. ETL,

    Would you suggest that a person suffering from anorexia nervosa, a young woman who won't eat anything except a few sticks of carrots or celery, is hospitalized and force fed eventually, is not "crazy" in some way, doesn't have a brain disorder of some sort?

    Does it do any good, provide any knowledge, help her get well and gain weight, to say "her disorder is 'natural'?" Egads.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 3:58 PM

    I pointed you in the direction of my arguments from earlier, since you clearly did not read them, I have condensed them. While the subspecies argument does not have any bearing on the question of transgenders, it does on Cochrans ridiculous argument.

    Race is not a subspecies. Genetic diversity within a species does not mean that it is a subspecies; they are still under the same species and subspecies. Humans are the same way; we are all under the designation Homo Sapiens sapiens. Genetic diversity within humanity points to humans being a polytypic species. Which means, a species that consists of a number of separate breeding populations, each varying in some genetic trait. Race is defined primarily by skin color, which is an indicator of sun exposure to a region. That is why people from Africa, Australia, and Italy are darker than people from Scandinavia. If you are going to start creating subspecies than the basic Crayola set you seem to be using is not enough. You would have to call each slight variation in skin pigmentation a different subspecies. Just using white, is not enough because there are variations in skin pigmentations depending on what region of Europe each person is from. They have not become subspecies because the groups have never been isolated. This is even truer now since so many "white" people are a mix of different European groups. People move, people always move, especially during the time of hunter gatherers, which existed until around 10,000 years ago for most of humanity.
    As for your claim that they differ in intelligence, you offer no proof so your entire statement stinks of discrimination. Samuel Morton tried to prove that with tainted cranial studies, but all races have comparable cranial capacities. While small genetic differences exist, you do not offer enough proof to classify them as subspecies instead of genetic diversity.
    http://www.unc.edu/~lmcbride/Menand-morton%20and%20Agassiz.pdf
    You would also have to show a genetic "purebreed" of a race to propose it as a subspecies, with clear genetic differences from all other humans. Since we are a young species, that naturally moves, we have not achieved the genetic isolation needed for subspecies to emerge, it would also take a long time. Since humans continue to comingle race as a distinction will soon be eliminated and you will not be able to make any claim towards racial subspecies.
    Isolationism is what creates subspecies, even restricted gene flow connects two populations. The only humans that are isolated enough to even create an eventual subspecies are ones that are artificially isolated; the Amish, the African Pygmies, and the San. These are very small groups with no gene flow that have been isolated. Genetically you and a black man are the same, there is no difference, but there is a slight difference between San people and a Pygmy. So unless you want to create subsubspecies out of each isolated population then you have no argument.

    http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/index1.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The entire notion of top down biological classification si mistaken. There are no such *things* as species.

      Delete
    2. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 5:30 PM

      It is not top down, it is properly classification. You have no scientific ground to stand on

      Delete
    3. Turns out top down classification is inferior to bottom up "classification". And "science" is just another way to say "knows that". Scientists who try to impose a top down classification on things are just wrong, in that they cannot explain what they are measuring.

      Delete
    4. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM

      Except when there is nothing to measure, as is the case with the social concept of race, it has no scientific grounding. And unless you bring in some justification for your rational, it is pointless to argue with you. I brought in proper science, along with my own knowledge and I can do no more, if you cling to ignorance that is your own business.

      Delete
    5. Ah, EYL, so I guess then you'd argue there is no such thing as "family," nuclear or extended.

      Delete
    6. "Samuel Morton tried to prove that with tainted cranial studies, but all races have comparable cranial capacities."

      Morton's research was verified and shown to be accurate. His attackers, like Stephen Jay Gould, turned out to be the charlatans.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=0

      Delete
    7. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 9:18 PM

      David: "Still, because they couldn't measure all the skulls, they do not know whether the average cranial capacities that Morton reported represent his sample accurately. (Cranial capacity varies mostly as a function of overall body size and stature, which is related to climate and nutrition, and there is no clear evidence of a link between cranial capacity and intelligence.)"
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html

      I will admit I was not aware of that development, but it does not erase scientific racism, it still existed.
      http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/Enc%20race%20Sci%20Racism%20Hist.pdf

      Anon: It is a social creation, while there is obviously a genetic relation, the family relation is a social one.

      Delete
  14. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

    That is a body image problem, which does not originate within the brain so your argument breaks down. They can eventually overcome their condition, but as it has been proven you cannot "fix" gays or transgenders, because there is nothing wrong with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By that reasoning if you cannot fix violent people there is nothing wrong with them.

      Delete
    2. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM

      Violence would fall into two categories, those made violent by their surroundings (not a brain issue) and those who have a diagnosable illness. Both of those can be combated with therapy, transgenders and gays are an identity, which has proven to be beyond the bounds of therapy. It would be as if someone tried to break your identity, so no they are not the same not by a long shot. Try again.

      Delete
    3. Eager Young Lib says "That is a body image problem, which does not originate within the brain so your argument breaks down."

      Gee, first I knew that such problems could originate in the toe, the liver, in the heart, all over the place, I guess.

      What the hell?

      I guess one could argue that neurotransmitter such as serotonin, which is produced not only in the brain but also in the GI tract, and whose functions we don't fully understand, could impact brain and spinal cord neurochem, but what the hell are you talking about?

      Delete
  15. Eager Young LiberalOctober 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/opinion/09nisbett.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

    ReplyDelete
  16. EYL,

    No, young man: brains fail to function correctly just as other organs fail. Why should you be insulted by that? The blind man knows his eyes do not work. The diabetic knows his pancreas is not functioning efficiently or at all. Most slow children and adults are aware they do not grasp things qwuickly as others do. But you? You are convinced that since you neither chose nor had chosen for you your sexuality, that you brain functions just fine identifying mates. Why be so defensive? Accept it, but be honest with yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 2:53 PM

    Because it insinuates that there is something wrong with them. I am defensive because they deserve to be defended from people like you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People like me = a believer in empiricism

      People like you = anti-science, player of word games, believer in fairy dust and unicorns (and I'll throw in innumerate as well, because if you were not, you'd not be so misunderstanding of natural selection)

      Delete
    2. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      I used science to explain my point, something you have not done, not once. So to claim you have science on your side is a dubious claim at best. There have been a lot of people who believe in God who ae a lot smarter than you, and made many advances in science, like Gregor Mendel and Georges Lemaître. As for natural selection, if you think that the "white race" is so much more supeior, than why do the others continue to exist? Because they are not inferior, and if you have to stand on the accomplishments of others, to prove YOUR superiority than clearly you are an obstacle to your own argument.

      Delete
    3. I think your comments were directed to another, but in response to your "if you think that the 'white race' is so much more superior, than [sic] why do the others continue to exist?" (BTW, did someone say "much more superior"? Or did they say there were cognitive differences?


      Are you suggesting continuance of existence depends on "superiority"? If so, why do other life forms from lowly one-celled organisms and insects and even other mammals still exist? Does their existence mean homo sapiens are not "superior" to them?

      Do you not think some groups of people could wipe out others should they decide to do so out of whim or out of necessity?

      Delete
  18. he flat out claimed that there were intellectual differences among races. Which in itself is a value judgment

    Uh, no, it's not, any more than saying that there are differences in bone density by race is a value judgement. What I suspect you're doing is conflating the common plaudit "he's a smart guy" with the clinical term "intelligence", which simply measures the ability to learn.

    Often the average person will conflate "having learned something" with the ability to learn things, in general. They have some relationship but are not the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 10:35 PM

      Yes it is, because what distinguished humans in the past and in the modern world is intelligence. To judge the intelligence of an entire group is a value judgment, it is to as a group they have less to offer.

      Delete
    2. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 10:40 PM

      What makes us human is our intelligence. To claim a group is less intelligent by vitue of the category humans created, it to place a value on them. To say that an entire group is less valuable, is a value judgement. To say they are less fit at being what makes us human is to assign a value to them.

      Delete
  19. About gender reassignment surgery: I am content being a straight male (and sometimes being set up to be the straight man, but that's another story) so I will not comment as I lack any point of reference to understand what people honestly needing such surgery are going through.God bless and good luck to them sez I. The current most notorious person to announce such a need is Private Bradley/Chelsey Manning. this person is either a hero defending liberty and our country's integrity or a traitor who disgraced the USA, depending on your take. Shame on our leaders for making the two indistinguishable, sez I.
    As for IQ by race, where I hang out the races are so mixed it's rather pointless to worry about it. The share of idiots, geniuses, and flat out assholes tends to be constant regardless of race, color, or national origin. the worst of the lot end up in DC and make the service/treason of Private Manning necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eager Young LiberalOctober 25, 2013 at 10:41 PM

      Thank you! One answer I can agree with.

      Delete