Greyhounds are racing dogs. Sausage dogs (Dachshund) are labeled bad runners. Of course, this prejudice is socially constructed and has no foundation in rality. Race is only skin deep. From birth on, parents and dog owners are indoctrinated that they can not run well.. Remedial running classes and sausage quotas in races are needed to right past discriminatory wrongs.
In reality, Sausage dogs are born with the same running capacity as greyhounds. Saying otherwise is racist.
- 71 fastest runners on earth: 1 white Christophe Lemaitre & 70 blacks. Are races equal? | Human-Stupidity
- Race and IQ | Human-Stupidity
Sausage dogs discriminated in dog racing
The following video shows a a Sausage dog (Dachshund) race
Once sausage dogs overcome social prejudice, they will be able to compete in the Greyhound Race. As there are many more sausage dogs then greyhounds, a 50% quote for sausage dogs in dog races is only fair to remedy centuries of discriminatory practices.
Pigmy quotas needed in Olympic races
Similarly, pigmies grow up being indoctrinated they can not win Olympic marathons or 100 m dashes. Of course, with affirmative action and special remedial running classes, this can be remedied.
Race is only skin deep and all people are born equal. Kenyan and Jamaican runners are socially expected to excel in running
EGALITARIAN JAY: I sent you 3 pornographic images in retaliation for your attempts at character assassination which was a last straw in a long line of harassment and malicious personal attacks by you and other posters. I sent it because I knew imagery of interracial sex greatly offends racists. One good turn deserves another.
FRANK: To have your character assassinated you have to actually have character Jay. Your “character” was shot when you received a one month ban for the proliferation of pornography to forum members.
You also made it clear at the time you sent those images to me that your motives were retaliation for the bullying you received from other forum “racists.” This character assassination angle only came into play when you had 7 days to think of an excuse in a feeble attempt to save your reputation.
You accuse me of damage control…sheesh.
EGALITARIAN JAY: If you weren’t obsessed with winning arguments Frank you would not have spent over 350 posts trying to debate me which is nearly equivalent to making one comment everyday for an entire year.
FRANK: You should be thankful that I was willing to debate you. The rest of that forum views you as a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur.
In addition, we had this conversation previously While I posted on that one forum frequently. You are the one who posts on nearly a dozen other forums including Youtube. You post on everything from Afrocentric to martial arts to beer barrel forums.
The name “Egalitarian Jay” is smeared all over the internet. Hell, even when I look for Youtube videos on Rushton, I find your name more than I do his…or at least it is pretty close near the top.
Anyone with any sense knows that you requested your banning in a fit of rage. You blew up and wrote hateful and dehumanizing comments towards me showing that you are every bit as racist as the typical Phora, Stormfront or VNN poster.
I sent you 3 pornographic images in retaliation for your attempts at character assassination which was a last straw in a long line of harassment and malicious personal attacks by you and other posters. I sent it because I knew imagery of interracial sex greatly offends racists. One good turn deserves another.
The punishment fit the crime.
If you weren’t obsessed with winning arguments Frank you would not have spent over 350 posts trying to debate me which is nearly equivalent to making one comment everyday for an entire year. If you were not obsessed you would not create an entire thread centered around flaming me. You would not ban yourself in a fit of rage (if The Phora bored you you could have just left without the childish ban request) and you would not revert to damage control like you are doing now.
1) Frank simply forfeited the debate. Egalitarian Jay has this petty obsession with winning all debates and arguments. He has no actual interest in truth but merely winning arguments against those he deems “racist.” The real sad part is a rational person with any sense of discriminating logic would have realized that this “official” defeat was superficial and hardly worth bragging about in any sense. However, if doing so gives Egalitarian Jays life some meaning, let him rejoice.
2) I had my account banned simply to prove the point that I was leaving and gone. The Phora has simply become a waste of time. The “fit of rage” accusation is a projection. It was a Egalitarian Jay who attacked me via the reputation system, sent me pornography and attacked me for what other posters did to him.
Just so all of you reading this blog know, Frank officially lost the debate and had himself banned in a fit of rage.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064614&postcount=85
Yes go ahead and read the thread. Draw your own conclusions. Frank however can not by trusted. This guy is a lunatic who has a thread running on that board where he relentlessly personally attacks me. That’s the whole purpose of the thread, to heckle me.
Regarding Nisbett what Nisbett defended was not the reliability of the source but the credibility of the research that source supported. Frank twists that fact into claiming Nisbett is defending a fraudulent study.
Ofcourse Frank accuses me of special pleading but has nothing to say about the multitude of times Rushton has dishonestly distorted the research of others and manipulated data which is pointed out by multiple scholars and mentioned to Rushton to his face by Graves in their debate.
Rushton is as dishonest as Frank is.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank tried to discredit Nisbett based on his citation of a study which turned out to be fraudulent and insisted this destroyed his credibility even though Nisbett admitted to be unaware at the time that the study was a fraud. This is a case of special pleading since Frank is still supportive of Rushton despite his blatantly dishonest research practices.
FRANK: EgalitarianJay is the king of special pleads. NIsbett used a study in his book called the “Milwaukee Project.” The “Milwaukee Project’s” founder was arrested and it turned out the project’s existence could not be verified.
However, what Jay omits to mention is that Nisbett merely said if he knew these facts about Heber he would not have included the study in his book. Nisbett goes on though to say that study supported other studies and that Heber was not the only person involved with the project.
In other words, Nisbett defended the project even after he learned that it was not reputable to say the least.
If you want to see Jay have his sources picked apart, please visit the above thread. If you want to see the human embodiment of hypocrisy, see EgalitarianJay in action at the above thread linked.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Frank’s argument: Frank argues that race is a biological reality. He insists that races differ in intelligence and temperament and that there is a hierarchy in these attributes which reveals that Mongoloids are at the top followed by Caucasoids and Negroids are at the very bottom. He relies heavily on the work of Rushton as his basis for this theory. He points to statistics such as crime rates as his evidence for this alleged reality and forensic, medical and genetic research to establish that races are real.
FRANK: And I invite people to come to the forum in which I post and examine the evidence for themselves:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77355
I deal with every issue from the credibility of Alan Goodman, Graves non-existent medical research experience, the fallacies of Scott MacEachern, and Egalitarian Jays regurgitation of Lewontins Fallacy. I also address the incorrect statements of Lieberman not to mention some Jays ramblings.
I invite all of you to visit the above thread link and judge the merits of the debate on your own.
Of course no one is keeping score so there is no official debate winner but I would like to outline some facts which indicate that my argument is more credible.
Here’s the key issue….
This debate revolves around the subject of race and intelligence. Race and Intelligence are concepts meant to describe human attributes that are rooted in biology. Race is a word ascribed to biological variation. Intelligence is a word ascribed to mental ability. The topic of discussion is whether or not races differ in innate intelligence which are caused by genetic differences between races. Logically one would need to provide sources from actual experts on the subject in order to get any kind of definitive answer and present a credible argument.
I have gone in the direction of synthesizing the arguments of experts on biology, culture and the mind to present an argument that is consistent with scientific consensus on the matter. My sources include Evolutionary Biologists, Biological and Cultural Anthropologists, Geneticists, Psychologists, Archeologists and Historians. Frank relies primarily on the work of Psychologists but has also included Geneticists, Forensic Anthropologists and Medical researchers and some amateur commentators.
My argument: While human genetic variation does exist race is a loaded term with different biological and social definitions. There is a semantic dispute over its meaning and debate over its scientific utility. In society we have socially constructed races that are ascribed to demographic groups.
I have argued that biological races do not exist in humans. There is genetic variation between continental populations which has indeed lead to some recognizable, heritable differences between certain populations but most genetic differentiation within the human species is within these continental populations rather than between them. Based on my sources this means that there are no major genetic distinctions between populations with different anatomical trait complexes that are of evolutionary significance. It isn’t denied that complexes exist (e.g. there are variations in traits like skin color, hair texture, craniofacial form, body build etc. and some populations differ notably in these aspects). The argument is that because of discordant variation classifications of human populations into groups based on these traits is not justified. In order for races to exist traits that make up these complexes would have to be intricately linked in order to establish that such traits reflect unique evolutionary paths or racial divergences from populations with different traits. This is not the case with humans.
Races or phylogenetic sub-species are absent in humans.
The debate over race and intelligence involves a few scholars advancing a fringe theory which is inconsistent with the mainstream scientific consensus. This theory that race determines average differences in innate mental ability relies on modern IQ testing which does confirm a disparity in the average scores of demographic groups however the hereditarian interpretation of these results relies on construction speculations about the cause. Racial hereditarians insist on a genetic component which implies immutable differences in intelligence between races.
My sources have refuted this assertion on empirical grounds by debunking the evolutionary theories which attempt to explain the genetic hypothesis and have shown that not only is there no credible evidence for the hereditarian interpretation but as the environment of disenfranchised groups improves the IQ gap and standard of living gap that IQ tests correlate with are gradually being reduced indicating that the gap is not immutable and infact entirely caused by environment.
Frank’s argument: Frank argues that race is a biological reality. He insists that races differ in intelligence and temperament and that there is a hierarchy in these attributes which reveals that Mongoloids are at the top followed by Caucasoids and Negroids are at the very bottom. He relies heavily on the work of Rushton as his basis for this theory. He points to statistics such as crime rates as his evidence for this alleged reality and forensic, medical and genetic research to establish that races are real.
Key Point: The research of Rushton is not credible
As I have mentioned before Rushton’s work relies on an ecological theory known as r/k selection to explain the alleged pattern in racial differences that exist in society. I countered the citation of Rushton with the rebuttals by Joseph Graves.
Graves critiqued Rushton’s theory in detail and explained that r/k selection theory was proven to be wrong by a series of experiments which revealed that its predictions did not hold up in a variety of organisms. These experiments lead to r-k theory’s almost total abandonment by Life History Evolutionists as far back as the 1990s as it was generally deemed to not be credible. Graves pointed this out in his debate with Rushton at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Graves has argued not only that the theory is not valid, but Rushton applied it backwards and that Rushton’s data is inadequate for supporting his theory. The data itself is actually tainted and of poor quality. As one of my academic contacts, Scott MacEachern noted, some of Rushton’s sources are mere caricatures of science. I noted that Rushton has not responded to Graves in print and therefore he shouldn’t be taken seriously on arguments over human evolution if he cannot even defend his theories against experts on evolution.
During our debate Frank initially tried to defend Rushton’s credibility by showing that his theory had support by other scholars. He did this by linking to Rushton’s own website which listed a series of endorsements, including one by E.O. Wilson who developed r/k selection theory.
I pointed out that Rushton’s endorsements were full of hereditarian Psychologists who were Rushton’s colleagues and grantees of the Pioneer Fund, a grant foundation notorious for financing racialist research. They are not experts on human evolution therefore their endorsements do nothing for Rushton’s credibility. Even though Wilson himself is a biologist his endorsement amounted to little more than a thumbs up of approval. He has not critiqued Rushton’s work in detail the way Graves has.
Eventually Frank emailed Rushton himself to get answers on his perspective on Graves critique. In the email it was revealed that Rushton does not even recall the arguments of Graves in detail. Rushton restated the thesis for his book and claimed that Graves ducked responding to his data which supports a racial pattern that only an evolutionary theory could explain. I emailed Graves and in his response he argued that he dismantled Rushton’s theory as well as showed that his data was unreliable for testing his theory as well as tainted. Therefore he challenges whether the racial pattern is real, notes that even if real Rushton has not presented a valid theory that could explain it and the environment could easily explain much of what Rushton reports.
Frank eventually abandoned defending Rushton’s evolutionary arguments in favor of defending the validity of the data itself, arguing that even if Rushton’s explanation is wrong the pattern he identified is still valid. He focused particularly on testosterone and twinning rates. He claimed Graves review of this data was not valid and revealed his ignorance. I argued that Graves review of this data were backed up by sources. Frank cannot find any sources that directly dispute Graves arguments over this data while I can find several that dispute Rushton’s arguments.
Graves was not the only critics of Rushton. I linked to book reviews and articles by Anthropologists and Psychologists such as C Loring Brace, Richard Lewontin, Scott MacEachern, Leonard Lieberman Richard Nisbett and James Flynn. Brace and Lewontin made similar criticisms that Graves did while Lieberman disputed Rushton cranio-racial hierarchy arguments. Nisbett argues that Rushton ignores and misinterprets a lot of the Psychometric research that challenges the validity of the Hereditarian position for the Black-White IQ gap. Flynn argues that as the Socioeconomic Environment of Black Americans improves they have made narrowed the academic gap with White Americans indicating that the IQ gap is being reduced. MacEachern argued that Rushton distorted the African historical record in order to support his invalid evolutionary theory of how races came to differ in intelligence.
Frank tried to dispute the arguments of all of these researchers including attacking their credibility in comical ways but at the end of the day the evidence against Rushton’s theories were clearly overwhelming.
Some examples of the way Frank tried to discredit my sources was by challenging Graves authority to speak on biomedical research when it was pointed out that
Graves argued against the reliability of racial medicine.
Frank insisted that Graves was not a qualified medical researcher therefore his opinion was worthless (an Appeal to Authority fallacy). I emailed Graves and he confirmed that not only was he qualified to speak on the scientific disciplines relevant to the biomedical field but that he actually taught Evolutionary Medicine at a medical school. His book The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium even received a positive review in the Journal of the American Medical Association. I provided a source confirming that Evolutionary Medicine was a valid field of study that was gaining recognition and acceptance within the medical field.
Not only did Graves defend his own credentials but Alan Goodman, the author of that review, defended Graves qualifications to speak on aspects of biomedical research, pointing out that as a Phd is a degree that trains a person to do research. Graves has a Phd in Evolutionary Biology. Evolution is relevant to the biomedical field because genetics impact risk to certain health conditions and it is important to understand the evolutionary mechanisms that determine genetic variation.
Frank had no credible rebuttal to these statements. All he could do was insist that Graves had no clinical medical training and dismiss Goodman because he was not a medical professional. This is not a credible rebuttal because I never argued that Graves had clinical medical training. Frank seems to think that the only biomedical research is that which requires clinical medical training when it was pointed out time and against that Graves biomedical research was on evolutionary medicine.
Frank tried to discredit Nisbett based on his citation of a study which turned out to be fraudulent and insisted this destroyed his credibility even though Nisbett admitted to be unaware at the time that the study was a fraud. This is a case of special pleading since Frank is still supportive of Rushton despite his blatantly dishonest research practices.
In our most recent debates Frank has attempted to attack Graves credibility by citing two book reviews. One is by an actual scholar. The other is by an anonymous racialist who runs a blog. I have already responded to the blogger but the this time the debates got so juvenile that I decided to withdraw from discussion and stop wasting my time debating Frank.
I am appreciative of you call to dispense with the personal attacks Admin. Frank currently has a thread running on The Phora which is fixated on personally attacking me. I have no interest in debating this individual any further and do no feel that his participation raises the quality of debate so I am going to discuss this issue elsewhere.
Ofcourse in reality I dealt with all of those sources before the debate devolved into a flame war due to Frank’s attempts at character assassination. I withdrew from the debate after it was clear that all I would be doing is refuting more rehashed arguments for another 30 or 40 pages as is the case with all the debates I’ve had with Frank. Most of his sources are laughable, were addressed and some amounted to little more than him posting a link without extrapolating an argument then declaring he had addressed my sources.
ADMIN: Frank, you are probably at loss here?
FRANK: No loss at all Admin. Egalitarian Jay is merely doing what he does best. He is simply cutting and pasting every strawman attack on the works of Rushton and Jensen. I have seen these links so many times, it has become boring.
If you go to the following thread you will see that I address Graves arguments involving testosterone and twin egging rates. In fact you will discover that Graves is quite ignorant about these issues and many other side issues as well.
You will also note that I present solid evidence of how forensic anthropologists can determine the race of a subject with 100% accuracy using mere pelvic and skull measurements. In fact the evidence of racial differences is so clear…well…just read the thread and you will see:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77355
Also remember this is the thread that sent Egalitarian Jay into a near psychotic episode.
I also address the absolute defamatory twistings made against Jensen’s actual position. You will find two articles from Neven Sesardić that deal with the issue of race and the distortions of Jensens works…
You may also be interested in this review of Graves lunacy:
http://jewamongyou.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/the-emperors-new-clothes-book-reviewcritique/
It addresses that illogical arguments that race cannot exist in humans as it does in dogs because our breeding was less than controlled. To accept the arguments of Graves and his personal clown squad you have to ignore the overwhelming to the contrary.
In all fairness, I have already cleaned Jay’s clock once on this issue. I do not have the desire to repeat the same experience on this medium.
I do not have his skill for repeating the same long-winded debates over several forums.
**** Source: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294Published
Fixed.
Like I said before Admin the real weakness of the theories of scholars like Rushton and Jensen is that they do not understand evolutionary genetics and don’t know how to develop experimental methods to test their hypothesis.
From the above source:
Despite the psychometricians’ inflated claims about the genetic basis of intelligence, almost none of them have any real or practical knowledge of experimental quantitative genetics. Parroting evolutionary and ecological concepts, many of them apply these para- digms uncritically as they search for simplistic explanations for extremely complicated aspects of human society (Graves & Place, 1995). The proper utilization of core evolutionary and quantitative techniques would shatter the psychometricians’ program. For example, efforts to test g experimentally would be rife with difficulties-of course, that could explain why the psychometricians avoid such a critical test. Additionally, there are several other alternative hypotheses concerning generalized intellectual ability the psychometricians have yet to test.
Admin,
I think it would be better if you stop using your analogies because they are getting quite silly. Has it ever occurred to you that humans in general might have naturally selected for intelligence and that the trait is not clinally distributed?
Take the perspectives of these experts on evolution for example:
IV. RACE
18. Jensen argues, in effect, that cognitive ‘races’ exist because genes related to human cognitive systems will have been subjected to diversifying selection in the same way as some superficial physical or physiological characters. He suggests that northern migrants would have faced particularly difficult conditions. As a result, groups of African descent will have lower frequencies of genes for superior cognitive abilities, compared with those of Caucasian or Mongoloid ancestry.
19. This completely misses the point. Our African hominid ancestors themselves evolved as a social-cooperative species in order to deal with conditions of extreme environmental uncertainty, as the climate dried, forests thinned, and former forest dwellers were ‘flung out’ onto the open savannah or forest margins. It is crucial to point out that when even as few as two individuals cooperate they create a new, social environment that is vastly more complex than anything experienced in the physical world. It is that complexity on the social plane which rapidly impelled the tripling of brain size and furnished the unique cognitive capacity for dealing with complexity in general – in the physical world as well as the social.
20. The uniquely adaptable, highly selected, socio-cognitive system that resulted was a prerequisite, not a consequence, of human migration patterns. Although inhabiting every possible niche, humans have only a quarter of the genetic variation of highly niche-specific chimpanzees (Kaessmann et al 1999). The system operates on a completely different plane from blind genetic selection – one which can ‘model’ the world conceptually, and anticipate and change it. If our heads get cold we invent hats, rather than wait for natural selection to reshape our skulls and increase the size of our brains (which is what Jensen suggests in one particularly questionable y line of argument). As Owens & King (1999) point out, what minor genetic differences exist are ‘quite literally superficial… the possibility that human history has been characterised by genetically homogeneous groups (“races”) distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence’.
21. Owens & King also point out that ‘Of course prejudice does not require a rational basis, let alone an evolutionary one, but the myth of major genetic differences across “races” is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence’ (453). This culmination of Jensen’s thesis, then, is as hollow as the conceptual foundations on which it based. It really is time this negative and fatalistic model of humanity was put behind us once and for all.
Source: DeMystifying G by Ken Richardson
Psychometricians admit that intelligence is clearly a polygenic trait (e.g., Jensen, 1973). The existence of a continuous distribution of intelligence, although not necessarily a bell- shaped one, is itself an indication of a polygenic trait. Jensen advanced the argument that there must exist differences at literally thousands of loci that account for the African deficit in intelligence. Despite this assertion, he was never able to demonstrate mechanisti- cally why or how the existence of genetic variation necessarily meant the deficiency of one population in a particular trait. Thus, his scenario was, in the final analysis, ridiculous. It is true that at the time he put forth his argument, data were just emerging on the measurement of genetic variation (polymorphism) in humans of various races (Nei & Livshits, 1989; Nei & Roychoudhury, 1982). However, anthropological data demonstrating that even morphological traits are not consistently differentiated between races had existed for centuries (J. Diamond, 1994, Brace, 1995). Take the example of skin color, which varies on a cline from tropical to arctic. Several “racial” groups have dark skin, including non- European Caucasians and Australoids. A tree of human “racial” groups would have both of these populations on the branches farthest away from Africans (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, & Piazza, 1994). Thus, clearly dark skin does not vary consistently with “racial” category
To modern population geneticists the idea that races differ consistently for any trait is nonsense. For example, there is more genetic variation among the people of the African continent than there is among all the rest of the human species combined (J. Diamond, 1994), and there is absolutely no reason to suppose that this variation excludes alleles that impact intelligence. Moreover, as Dobzhansky and Montagu (1975) so eloquently point out, natural selection for mental ability is overwhelmingly uniform throughout the world.
Source: The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: AfricanAmericans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294
It is great to have some lively discussion about issues. But if it gets to a pure pissing contest about who offended whom, then we get a bit off topic.
And, maybe I am too dumb to understand the comments about THIS article. I would appreciate more focus on the actual examples.
EgalitarianJay said:
Simple answer to your analogy: Dog racing and human racing are not comparable to the Black-White achievement gap because there is no historical evidence of racist discrimination that has disenfranchised certain groups of racing dogs or human runners.
Oh yes, pygmies and sausage dogs have clearly been excluded from race training. Haven’t seen one single sausage dog in a dog race. Nor in training. No in an affirmative action training as a young puppy. They are not given a chance. Everyone reinforces the belief that they cannot win on a race track.
Any pygmies on any major University in a athletic scholarship? Or at least on a High School? Any quotas? And yes, pygmies get even killed they are persecuted. That is the reason why they can not run fast enough. If you give them a chance, you might find a Flynn effect, they will start closing the gap.
Pygmies are clearly disenfranchised and there is no proof they can not perform with excellence in Olympic races. It is all socially constructed, and all differences in running abilities origin from social injustice.
And what about disenfranchisement of Vietnamese boat people and Chinese railroad slaves ahem workers a couple of decades ago?
Also no one said that there were no anatomical differences and obvious differences like height and bone structure will have an effect on certain athletic abilities. But as far as race being only skin deep is concerned I would recommend that you look at what evolutionary biologists have to say on this topic.
Read this interview with Graves who covers various racial topics including athleticism:
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-06.htm
There is no difference in bone structure between pygmies and Kenyan runners? or between Japanese and Kenyans? And no difference in testosterone, twinning rates in the ovaries?
Frank, you are probably at loss here?
One argument is that dogs were bred for certain qualities. These people don’t understand that evolution does the same. A long term investing planner who waits for a return on investment in 20 years would miserably fail in Somalia but succeed in Japan. And a happy go lucky non-planning central African would have died in the first Japanese winter, thousands of years ago.
Egalitarian Jay:
You earlier chastised me for bringing this battle over to human-stupidity. In fairness I accepted your statement and said that I would drop it on this blog (see post # 13.)
Now you are continuing this urination contest yourself. Ignoring your selective choosing of our debate quotes to post here. It amazes me how you are now doing what you earlier condemned me for doing.
If people want to see me intellectually shred you or torture themselves by listening to your complete lack of wit when it comes to tossing an insult, the phora links have been provided.
I am done, you are exposed! 🙂
More insanity from Frank:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1063870&postcount=24
“My job is not as glamorous as your job of selling your buck tooth bronze-tanned booty-bimbos on the street corner for crack and Ruffles chips. Hmmm…or do they sell you for the crack and chips?”
This lunatic created a thread on a message board with the intent to flame me. What a nutjob.
Frank has confirmed his obsessive tendencies.
I recently went to the Phora and after saying he was leaving this forum I caught Frank continuing to talk about me after I said I was leaving. I decided to ask Frank why he is so obsessed with me. It was a simple question.
Frank took at least 32 minutes to write his reply.
Here is the evidence:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/7239/frankcommenting.png
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/6356/frankshoutbox.png
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8769/frankbackatthread.png
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2734/frankgravesthread.png
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/2414/frankinmorphthread.png
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5350/frankmodifyingpost.png
Here is the link to Frank reply:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1063843&postcount=12
Within his reply he made a very lewd comment about my mother in order to make a suggestion that he wishes I had never been born:
Frank: “And the only thing I have against your mother is she did not use contraception the night you were conceived…”
In case he edits it here is the original post:
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4094/wwwthephoranetscreencap.png
I don’t know that anyone even cares to read this.
If I were an Admin of this blog I would block Frank for lowering the quality of discussion here.
His obsession with picking fights with me outweighs any contribution he makes to debate on the topic.
I sent you porn links that I got in a 20 second search on Google images. Only in your demented mind is joking around about pornography evidence that one is a potential sex offender. I told another racist poster on The Phora who turned out to be a troll that was permanently banned to do things that White racists are known to do (e.g. incest, prison rape etc.) and in your twisted mind this means that I am encouraging illegal activity. It was an insult. And you know that. You are just a liar who twists facts to present your own distorted viewpoints.
I don’t know anyone personally who posts on this blog. You came here because you are obsessed with debating me and obsessed with painting me in as bad a light as possible. I have been able to be civil with the Admin and other posters here as well as elsewhere who have racialist views but with you one way or another debate devolves into immature flame wars. This is because of you and your immaturity, Frank.
You have berated me on multiple occasions with insults that span multiple pages. I do not have time for you and your obsessive, deranged tendencies.
I find it ironic that you would accuse me of being disrespectful to women and a potential sex offender when you insulted my mother calling her a slut in retaliation for me trolling you in the Shoutbox and were not above having friendly discussions with Clancy about your mutual contempt for me after he posted a pornographic photoshop of my 4th Grade school photo. You did not publicly condemn him as a potential sex offender and continued normal interactions with him with out any sort of protest.
It is because you have a personal vendetta against me that you fixate on any little thing that I do.
You are a disturbed individual.
You need to get a life and stop heckling people on the internet.
EGALITARIAN JAY: You said that I was likely to be a sex offender solely on the basis that I sent posters porn links in retaliation for the heinous racist attacks on me. You even conceded the point to that moderator and apologized for your childish behavior. I suppose given your insecurity you are more likely to concede your faults to your peers rather than be honest with your opponents.
FRANK: I accused you of being a sex offender in the making due to your continual of pushing of interracial pornography on those who angered you. Your counsel to other posters to commit incest and homsexual prison rape not to mention disturbing comments like this:
EGALITARIAN JAY: “You probably Pm’d one of those posters complaining about receiving porn links from me and lost your mind when you saw that big breasted White woman getting banged by a thuggish looking Black man telling her to spit on his dick.
You like that sort of thing just tell the truth.
All of you racist White men have a closet fetish for interracial porn and fantasize about having sex with women of color.
Men of color as well in your case.”
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1045814&postcount=64
The reason I brought your antics here Morpheus or EgalitarianJay is I wanted people to see that you are not the mature high and mighty righteous poster you pretend to be. You chastise other for being childish while you are the one who stores filthy offensive porn on his computer and sends it to be people who hurts his feelings.
As far as leaving you alone goes? I proved what I wanted to prove here. I will leave this medium…for now. However, if you return to the phora, I will debate you as I see fit…
Again Frank I have admitted my reaction to your attempts at character assassination (accusing me of bullying Youtube girls) and insults (calling me a future sex offender, jobless loser, demonic and animalistic etc.)
was immature. But you are not honest enough to admit your own stupidity and choose to harp on about this issue.
I said enough.
Leave me alone and go debate someone else.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Another poster recently called Frank a mental midget and in reaction Frank conceded defeat to me and declared he was leaving the board only to return immediately when he got some supportive comments. This behavior strikes me as someone who is emotionally unstable and desperately seeks the approval of his peers.
FRANK: You do know that he called you a mental midget as well? You accuse me of emotional instability when you are the one sending me interracial pornography because OTHER POSTERS attacked you. You accuse me of emotional instability when you attack me as a child molester yet explode when someone calls you the “N-word.”
The one who is emotionally unstable is the one who takes abuse, comes back for more, flames away and then plays the victim when he snaps.
If you want to continue this debate Morpheus. Kindly meet me here:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78072
Frank: What Egalitarian Jay declines to tell you dear readers is he attacked me as “racist” in post # 104 of that thread and mocked me personally as someone who was “rambling.”
EgalitarianJay: Notice how Frank calls me a liar yet I have stated that Frank attacks me because he is angry I call him and others racist. He feels that the this charge which is a labeling of an ideological viewpoint gives him license to personally attack me under the guise that he is “standing up to me.”
You did ramble Frank and somehow that justifies childish insults on your part.
Frank: You will see that Egalitarian Jay lies to the forum. He links to post # 370 in the Graves\Rushton debate as proof that I attacked him when he was being civil. However, lets examine the entire thread.
In post # 367, Egalitarian Jay calls me “arrogant.”
EgalitarianJay: You insulted the intelligence of a scholar which is arrogant. Again I criticized you for a specific behavior or ideological view and in your mind this justifies personal attacks which have absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The problem here Frank is you are very spiteful. If anyone says anything to you that you regard as offensive you lash out at them maliciously and relentlessly for revenge then have the audacity to call yourself the victim.
Frank:The moderator in question admitted that he did not read the thread and attacked a strawman argument. I never said that people who view pornography were likely to be sex offenders.
EgalitarianJay: You said that I was likely to be a sex offender solely on the basis that I sent posters porn links in retaliation for the heinous racist attacks on me. You even conceded the point to that moderator and apologized for your childish behavior. I suppose given your insecurity you are more likely to concede your faults to your peers rather than be honest with your opponents.
Frank: Of course this is up to the blog administrators to accept or reject your offer. But why don’t you start your own blog and post them yourself? Why should the people who run this successful blog give you any further free publicity? Especially, when you just made it clear you will not debate one of your chief opponents?
EgalitarianJay: I have no desire to make a blog and the Admin has acknowledged that I have raised the quality of discussion on this subject linking to both my videos and my channel and thanking me for my contribution. While we disagree on the topic he has acknowledged my participation as productive. He is the one who mentioned those videos so perhaps he would like to discuss them. That is all I am suggesting.
And I have said that I do not desire to debate you for this very reason. You are so self-absorbed and so obsessed with scoring imaginary debate points over me that you came to the blog to promote a flame war and my eventual banning just to get attention and smear me. Why would I want to debate someone like that?
Look at this current exchange. We are talking about the past flame war on The Phora rather than the Race and Intelligence debate because you decided to bring it up. I have simply corrected the record pointing out that you were just as immature as I was on the board and in fact more malicious and persistent with your personal attacks while I was more reactionary. Those are the facts.
Again I recommend that you drop this childish exercise and move on to something else.
I have debated you long enough Frank and gotten to know what type of person you are.
I don’t have time for you and your bullshit.
Special Pleading is another one of the issues Egalitarian Jay has with honest debate. To him Rushton is dishonest while Nisbett is honest…
Jay issues a quote from Nisbett that he received by email….
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=998240&postcount=141
My response was as follows:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=998265&postcount=144
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=998403&postcount=146
EGALITARIAN JAY: Nisbett: “I frankly don’t take Rushton seriously. Jensen would be a different matter, but I have been told he is in his cups and Rushton just signs his name to everything he writes.”
FRANK: What is interesting about this cherry picked quote Egalitarian Jay drummed up from our debate is that he omitted to include his own commentary:
EGALITARIAN JAY: “I’m not just saying this because I favor the views of Nisbett, Frank. I will admit right now that Nisbett’s comment on cherry-picking in his email to me was disappointing. He hasn’t even bothered to read all of Jensen and Rushton’s reply to him.”
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=998426&postcount=147
Have to correct a link:
FRANK: You will see that Egalitarian Jay lies to the forum. He links to post # 370 in the Graves\Rushton debate as proof that I attacked him when he was being civil. However, lets examine the entire thread.
In post # 367, Egalitarian Jay calls me “arrogant.”
“Your arguments are extremely weak and you are so arrogant as to insult the intelligence of the scholars so rather than waste my time with you it’s more economic to simply let the actual scholar in question defend their arguments.”
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1051446&postcount=367
EGALITARIAN JAY: Admin I’ve said all I care to say on this topic.
If you wish to continue this discussion I recommend making another blog entry with a fresh topic.
Perhaps you’d like to link to Race: The Power of an Illusion and discuss your impression of that TV Special.
FRANK: Of course this is up to the blog administrators to accept or reject your offer. But why don’t you start your own blog and post them yourself? Why should the people who run this successful blog give you any further free publicity?
Especially, when you just made it clear you will not debate one of your chief opponents?
EGALITARIAN JAY: That is a lie. Any time I have retaliated against you has been for your uncivil behavior and malicious attacks. For instance the interracial porn PM was in direct reaction to this post:
FRANK: One thing people will learn about Egalitarian Jay is that he is quite dishonest. You will notice that he linked you to post # 108 only. Apparently I drove him to flood my mailbox with porn with an unprovoked attack.
What Egalitarian Jay declines to tell you dear readers is he attacked me as “racist” in post # 104 of that thread and mocked me personally as someone who was “rambling.”
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1059496&postcount=104
Egalitarian Jay screams out in pain as he attacks his victims.
EGALITARIAN JAY: He complains about me joking about him being a rapist and a pedophile but doesn’t acknowledge that those attacks were in reaction to a flame war that he started. Frank has continually personally attacked me in the middle of a debate I tried to keep civil.
FRANK: You will see that Egalitarian Jay lies to the forum. He links to post # 370 in the Graves\Rushton debate as proof that I attacked him when he was being civil. However, lets examine the entire thread.
In post # 367, Egalitarian Jay calls me “arrogant.”
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1051461&postcount=367
I am not even going to attempt to count the number of times he has called me a “racist.”
EGALITARIAN JAY: Even a moderator criticized him for his stupid remark.
FRANK: The moderator in question admitted that he did not read the thread and attacked a strawman argument. I never said that people who view pornography were likely to be sex offenders.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1046032
In the above thread you have provided you referred to me as “racist” in post # 43 when I was civil with you up until that point. You conveniently omit that little tidbit.
In fact you even went out of your way to defend using the term “racist” to describe me. You attack others and then play the victim when they stand up to you.
You are merely cutting and pasting the Flynn, Dickens and Nisbett material that has been long debunked. I can play that game as well:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2010%20PAID%20(Brain%20size%20and%20national%20IQ).pdf
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20PSnew.pdf
The criticisms of the MTRA are most silly for the following reasons:
1) Socio-economic status was controlled and this lead to a temporarily increase in child IQ for all groups. However, the increase and regression occurred in all groups. It occurred across the board universally.
2) Rushton points out that mullato children who were believed to be black and faced the same conditions as the black kids actually scored in the intermediate between their white and black counterparts.
3) Sandra Scarr did indeed admit to a flaw in the study as she admitted that the researchers were attempting to prove an enivronmental model.
4) It is silly to assume an initial lower IQ for black children who were adopted a few months or a year later as IQ is most environmental sensitive and elastic during these times.
5) One cannot assume that “educational levels” translates into IQ. I would be more interested in the IQ scores of the mothers rather than mere educational levels at a time where it was common for women to be in the homemaking craft.
The study you have linked is quite meaningless unless we know the types of IQ testing that was used, sample sizes etc…
If the tests were of g-loaded weak nature, they would prove very little
Nevermind they came back as soon as I logged in…
My last two posts are missing….
Frank: This strikes me as an outlandish claim.
EgalitarianJay. It’s not outlandish it’s documented.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/racegen.pdf
Nisbett: “More importantly, statistically equating blacks and whites on measures of the environment that include not only traditional indicators of SES but also measures of family and neighborhood quality virtually eliminates the B/W IQ gap (Brooks-Gunn & colleagues, in chapter xx).”
Frank: The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Studies illustrated that when environment is controlled, black children have a definite increase in IQ but by adulthood the IQ scores have regressed toward the average mean for African-Americans.
EgalitarianJay: As I pointed out before that adoption study was seriously flawed and admittedly so by its own authors.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf
Nisbett: The Scarr and Weinberg study held neither race nor expected IQ nor adoptive setting constant. An additional problem with the Scarr and Weinberg study is that the Black children were adopted at a later age than the others, which would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ for them. In addition, the Black children’s mothers had lower educational levels than did those of the other two groups, which also would prompt an assumption of lower initial IQ. Finally, the “quality of placement” was higher for White children than for other children. All of these facts combined mean that it is not possible to know what to predict under either a hereditarian model or a pure environmental model.”
Frank: Previous studies by credible psychologists have shown that the IQ gap actually remained in place as recent as 2005
EgalitarianJay: While a qualified psychologist I would not call Rushton a credible researcher. He is known to be consistently dishonest and many scholars find his arguments to be ridiculous.
Nisbett: “I frankly don’t take Rushton seriously. Jensen would be a different matter, but I have been told he is in his cups and Rushton just signs his name to everything he writes.”
That being said research has been down by credible Psychologists that reach different conclusions:
Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_IQ.pdf
Common ground and differences William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20060619_response.pdf
Frank: Rushtons most recent work illustrated a hereditarian view of intelligence
EgalitarianJay: Rushton’s brain size and intelligence correlations claimed to support racial hierachies were thoroughly debunk 10 years ago and more recently by other scholars.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsPAIDrejoinder.pdf
Ofcourse Graves refuted Rushton’s evolutionary theories which was pointed out earlier.
http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf
These theories have been looked into and discredited as pseudoscience.
Frank you are ofcourse free to post where you wish but I have no desire to debate you any further. You’ve come here making up lies in defense of your participation in flame wars on The Phora and I predict that any further exchange here will initiate more long-winded screeds that aren’t worth anyone’s time.
Admin I’ve said all I care to say on this topic.
If you wish to continue this discussion I recommend making another blog entry with a fresh topic.
Perhaps you’d like to link to Race: The Power of an Illusion and discuss your impression of that TV Special.
Frank: The fact is Egalitarian Jay has a huge problem when someone can debate him on the issues. If you read the entire thread in question, you will see that I conducted myself in a civilized manner when debating EJ. It was Egalitarian Jay who exploded and went ballistic when the heat got a little too hot for him.
EgalitarianJay: That is a lie. Any time I have retaliated against you has been for your uncivil behavior and malicious attacks. For instance the interracial porn PM was in direct reaction to this post:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1059521&postcount=108
“It is much easier to bully around young Youtube girls isn’t it Morpheus?”
The allegation is an example of character assassination as the charge is damaging to my reputation. I admitted here to being immature in my reactions to Frank and the other posters but Frank doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge his behavior.
He complains about me joking about him being a rapist and a pedophile but doesn’t acknowledge that those attacks were in reaction to a flame war that he started. Frank has continually personally attacked me in the middle of a debate I tried to keep civil.
Example:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1051461&postcount=370
Frank: “you are little more than an impoverished underemployed internet college punk who likely lives in his mommy’s basement.”
Frank has not only attacked me he has made personal attacks on me and held to those attacks for pages and pages completely derailing discussion. For instance he accused me of demonic and animalistic behavior towards a female poster on Youtube and insisted that his perception was the case even when it was outlined that it wasn’t. Even other posters admitted he way off base with the accusation.
I was banned for 1 month for sending porn links through PM to racist Phora posters who were sending me malicious racist insults through the rep system. If anyone wants to see the comments for themselves here they are:
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6286/flamingrep.png
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2776/flamingrep02.png
Frank was fully aware of the nature of these insults as I had posted similar comments before but because of my method of retaliation he accused me of being a future sex offender:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1046000&postcount=72
Frank: “Oh yes Morpheus, being called names by an impoverished sexual deviant and likely future sex offender really hurts me. You are correct, I cannot stop your undisciplined animal like behaviour. Hopefully, when your beastly nature forces you to cross those lines I believe you will eventually cross the police will be able to stop you.”
Even a moderator criticized him for his stupid remark:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1046032&postcount=74
Helios: “I have not read this retarded discussion, but are you actually suggesting that he’s likely to be a sex offender because he has viewed pornography? If so, congratulations, that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve read on this site.”
And as I recall THAT is the post where I retaliated by sending Frank a rep comment calling him a racist pedophile then mocked him in the Shoutbox calling him a rapist. Personal attacks do make me angry and I am prone to retaliate albeit in as immature a manner as the initial attack. I need to work on how I react to stuff like this. But I do not start these confrontations and try to avoid them if possible.
Frank revels in them. As I pointed out before he will literally cling to a personal attack for multiple pages because he knows it agitates his opponent. He is not a civil debater. He is manipulative and dishonest. I deactivated my rep comments on The Phora because I was sick of the personal attacks. I have decided to leave because I don’t have time for long-winded debates. Particularly with Frank.
We have debates on The Phora that span months and go on for 30 or 40 pages. This is due to Frank’s obsessive debate style. He over quotes and harps on the same issues over and over again. While that style of debate is annoying to reply to I would not mind it so much if it weren’t for the persistent personal attacks. I do not have time for that.
Frank has a personal vendetta against me. He’s angry because I once called him a racist in a debate and wants to win arguments and pick fights with me at any opportunity. I suspect he does it because he wants the reputation of being a hero on that message board. He gets upset when racialist posters disapprove of his debates with me.
Another poster recently called Frank a mental midget and in reaction Frank conceded defeat to me and declared he was leaving the board only to return immediately when he got some supportive comments. This behavior strikes me as someone who is emotionally unstable and desperately seeks the approval of his peers.
Frank has accused me of intimidating women, being a criminally prone sexual deviant, being a jobless loser in need of psychiatric help insulted me in numerous other ways I can’t even recall and never once were these attacks provoked. Any insults towards him were in retaliation, admittedly in ways that paint me in no better a light but even though this is well documented Frank continues to be dishonest about his involvement and initiation of these confrontations.
Frank I encourage you to just stop. Stop lying and stop attacking people. Your personal vendetta is obsessive and strange. You need to quit and find another hobby or atleast not get so absorbed in debating people to the extreme of picking fights with them.
Enough.