'Progressive' (shitlib) false narratives and their debunkings

All narratives are just opinions, people seem to think they have to accept them and believe them.  Reject all narratives, they are opinions. They are not fact nor truth. Don't know why anybody listens to them in the first place. 

Just to reiterate, you have posted a number of links as if they are authoritative. I have presented a number of key reasons why the authority you give to these link is not justified.

Thus far, you have given no reason why I should accept the authority, and in the absence of a good reason why I should accept these arguments as credible - there is no argument left for me to argue against: as you have made no other argument.

Your implicit demand that I must accept what these sources say, is therefore “shifting the burden of proof”.

Just stop with the fakery. He has not demanded that you accept anything. Where is your brain? Why do you need to accept their authority in order to evaluate their arguments? Can you not think for yourself?

What does it matter who the man is if what he is saying is right or wrong? He is asking you to think for yourself. But obviously being out of the herd makes you uncomfortable.

But black people score lower not because they are stupid. It is because they on average receive less education. Still a problem though.

All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

Can nobody evaluate any of the arguments in the links and give a reasoned rebuttal? The authors do not need credibility, they are not asking you to believe in God. Is what they say reasonable and rational? If not, why?

All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

When evaluating the credibility of a witness / source, ad hominem is relevant and isn't fallacious.

For everybody:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/7o5hxx/a_response_to_the_alternative_hypothesis_video/

All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

you linked to a website that regularly advocates for the superiority of white people or the inferiority of other people.

Therefore saying you are linking to a white supremacism website is neither Ad Hominem not Logically fallacious.

It is a statement of fact.

And that is exactly why it isn't even worth responding to any of these articles. If you choose to think that these have merit, there isn't really any point going down this racist rabbit hole. 

If I link to a list of nonsensical articles from a ridiculous source, will you feel the necessity of trying to disprove all of them? I seriously doubt you would waste your time doing that. His source is basically a white supremacist website. I have much better things to do with my time than try to explain to a blatant racist why his racism is wrong. He will never see what he is doing as racist. Probably because he doesn't see racism as a problem.

All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

When evaluating the credibility of a witness / source, ad hominem is relevant and isn't fallacious.

You are logically incorrect.

Ad Hominem is always a logical fallacy.

We should be addressing the arguments involved, instead of assessing the author making them. Furthermore, the thread is about the arguments involved, not the nature of the author.

You are just being a massive idiot like all the other shitlibs here.

For everybody:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/7o5hxx/a_response_to_the_alternative_hypothesis_video/

For you:

'Progressive' (shitlib) false narratives and their debunkings (debateart.com)

I posted mine first. You respond to everything first, then I'll respond to everything here.

Now let's watch you not do that.

All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

When evaluating the credibility of a witness / source, ad hominem is relevant and isn't fallacious.

You are logically incorrect.

Ad Hominem is always a logical fallacy.

We should be addressing the arguments involved, instead of assessing the author making them. Furthermore, the thread is about the arguments involved, not the nature of the author.

You are just being a massive idiot like all the other shitlibs here.

That's not true. Read the wiki please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

For everybody:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/7o5hxx/a_response_to_the_alternative_hypothesis_video/

For you:

'Progressive' (shitlib) false narratives and their debunkings (debateart.com)

I posted mine first. You respond to everything first, then I'll respond to everything here.

Now let's watch you not do that.

It's too much work.

What are your thoughts on traditional liberalism?

However, this is not the same as being logically fallacious, as is the function implied in an 'Ad Hominem' claim. By using Wikipedia's definition, you're essentially arguing that because their conflict of interest *might* have caused the research to be biased, it *has* to be biased. This leap in logic is why Wikipedia's interpretation of logic is wrong.

Moreover, if the bias were to effect the results of the study, that should be evident in the results, and that's where your criticisms should be directed. In other words, the validity of the study exists *independent* of the author's character. More likely to be biased =/= biased.

Therefore, it is logically fallacious to attack the character of the people making the arguments, rather than the arguments"

Ah.

So you were perfectly fine with expecting me to respond to the 10,000 word hitpiece on Ryan Faulk and the Alt Hype website.

But we shouldn't expect you to respond to a dozen articles totaling about the same amount of work. 

How charitable of you.

I suppose you listen to Dave Rubin from time to time.  

However, this is not the same as being logically fallacious, as is the function implied in an 'Ad Hominem' claim. By using Wikipedia's definition, you're essentially arguing that because their conflict of interest *might* have caused the research to be biased, it *has* to be biased. This leap in logic is why Wikipedia's interpretation of logic is wrong.

Moreover, if the bias were to effect the results of the study, that should be evident in the results, and that's where your criticisms should be directed. In other words, the validity of the study exists *independent* of the author's character. More likely to be biased =/= biased.

Therefore, it is logically fallacious to attack the character of the people making the arguments, rather than the arguments"

Probability is exactly what it's about. If a witness is testifying in court who is obviously intoxicated, a known liar and has an obvious reason to lie, we can use those facts - which are entirely ad hominem - to evaluate the probability that the witness's testimony is reliable. When a lawyer is in court advocating for his client, it's obvious that his arguments are very likely going to favor his client's interests because that's his job.

There's so much information in the world we have to use a heuristic filter, and the simplest one is trust. As a threshold matter, a source should have some appearance of credibility. I did look at the blog site and was trying to find out who the sources were, which was Ryan Faulk and Sean something or rather. I don't know much about them, but what they did say on their about page didn't do much for their credibility. In fact it tried to avoid the credibility issue much the same way you have, by encouraging people to evaluate the arguments themselves and to not trust anybody, or something like that. The problem is it takes too long to do that. We have to rely on heuristics. It's somewhat ironic, come to think of it, as racial prejudice follows similar reasoning. But it is what it is.

If I link to a list of nonsensical articles from a ridiculous source, will you feel the necessity of trying to disprove all of them?

I seriously doubt you would waste your time doing that.

His source is basically a white supremacist website. I have much better things to do with my time than try to explain to a blatant racist why his racism is wrong. He will never see what he is doing as racist. Probably because he doesn't see racism as a problem.

The OP did no work, made no effort and presented no argument.

No. First, no one asked you to disprove them

Can nobody evaluate any of the arguments in the links and give a reasoned rebuttal?

Or pick a single link and say something about why you agree or disagree. Otherwise, why are you in this thread?

Second, how do you know the articles are non-sensical if you didn't read them?

If I were to follow your standard, I would without discussion dismiss any liberal here quoting CNN, Huffpost, or MSNBC as offering nonsensical  ridiculous sources. By coming to a debate website, you imply you at least intend to listen to viewpoints different than your own.

I would, and I do. I tolerate loony liberal nonsense all the time for the sake of argument. If you will only engage political views that agree with your own, you're pretty much useless here.

If your views are so right and those with different views are hopeless, why did you bother to post here? Go and do those things you think are much better. The rest of us wish to debate, and not just leftist Pollyanna topics either.

So, pick a link and discuss that

So, pick a link and discuss that

So, pick a link and discuss that

I did. 

Specifically, I questioned the bias and whether the claims are reliable.

But if you want an argument: please look here

https://www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/7o5hxx/a_response_to_the_alternative_hypothesis_video/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

The arguments Ryan and Sean make are data-driven. If the data is wrong/misinterpreted/incorrect, that should be the discussion's focus. If the conclusions Ryan and Sean make from the data is wrong, then that should be the discussion's focus. This is not an insurmountable hurdle wherein we must determine the nature of the author. You can get the sources, read to see if what the source say supports what Ryan Faulk or Sean Last is arguing, and that is all you need. That is all that matters.

Stop making these logically fallacious Ad Hominem arguments -- they are never valid.

The arguments Ryan and Sean make are data-driven. If the data is wrong/misinterpreted/incorrect, that should be the discussion's focus. If the conclusions Ryan and Sean make from the data is wrong, then that should be the discussion's focus. This is not an insurmountable hurdle wherein we must determine the nature of the author. You can get the sources, read to see if what the source say supports what Ryan Faulk or Sean Last is arguing, and that is all you need. That is all that matters.

Stop making these logically fallacious Ad Hominem arguments -- they are never valid.

[no response]

Supposing all his theories were correct

then the cheapest way to go about fixing it would probably be to start mandatory vasectomies for men with low IQs or who are otherwise genetically deficient. Tube ties are too expensive. Problem would fix itself in a generation or two, and people can use the sperm banks. Those among us who are genetically inferior will just have to be cucked for the greater good.

I take it that you agree now that Ad Hominem is always logically fallacious.

We don't need to suppose and they're not theories. They are data-driven arguments that lead to conclusions.

If you don't agree with any argument in particular, specify it.

Good luck getting anyone to agree with that.

Not really clear what you mean by "logically" fallacious. Ad hom can be relevant when there's a relationship between the conclusion of an argument and the person (or entity, I guess) in question.

I think by now pretty much everyone is reasonably aware of scientific racism arguments

which is pretty much what's being advanced in the blog

though there are clear missing logical steps here and there where the advanced conclusion simply defaults to racist one.

For example, in their article showing that genes coding for some brain development have higher interracial variance than other genes, this is regarded as a clear mechanism for interracial IQ variance. Yet, no evidence is presented that those genes have any actual impact on IQ.

Also, in the existence of race article, a definition for race is advanced which is presented as self-evident because that's "obviously" what it is. I'm afraid it's not so obvious, and if we use that advanced definition the categories for race don't line up with Ryan and Sean's categories at all because a lot more groups of people (e.g. Okinawan, Nordic) would satisfy the definition.

Questions of causes of trends within identified groups are difficult to answer. For me, confidence in conclusions happens solemnly and reluctantly, like when you're faced with irrefutable evidence that someone you liked and trusted has betrayed you. The bloggers appear passionate and biased about this topic. It comes across as tribalist advocacy rather than something academic.

OK. Lets talk about the existence of race argument. Since I'm already reasonably familiar with it, it's not that much work for me to talk about it. Without making any counter-case, I will speak strictly as to why the argument isn't persuasive.

First, none of the links to the studies on questionnaires work. They are all broken links. For that reason, all that evidence can be disregarded.

Second, the argument is heavily based on genetics. Yet, concepts of race have existed long before genetics ever did. If we're going to try to understand what race is, then we should be looking at when and how the notion originated and how the idea has been carried forward, at least from a linguistic standpoint. So, focusing on genetics as a starting point seems a bit misplaced.

Further, the genetic evidence being presented doesn't justify the purported races advanced on the site. Populations that have been geographically separated for long periods of time are genetically distinguishable through testing, just as black, white and asian are. So, this test he is presenting  - It can also be done for groups that aren't considered races. Ancestry tests (e.g. "23 and me") have become big business these days.

I was making a subtle point in a humorous way. Ofc nobody is going to agree to that. It would be too great a sacrifice for the benefit of their race, or country or whatever. Sure, my people would be better off (probably) if everyone agreed to some optimal polygamous mating system. But I'm not going to do that because I'm going to put my interests ahead of my people's. Ah, selfishness when the interests of your people and your own conflict. Perhaps I want you to see that when you are doing what is best for your people, it can be a "cuck move", as you say. The only people when it's really not are close family, I think.