No, because that's not the point I was making. Of course people on the left aren't for arranged marriage. I was saying that the left has created a situation where people are afraid of being painted as Islamophobe so they just don't speak up. Like that judge.
I thought this pewresearch article was interesting because India was highlighted and I had no idea that India had blasphemy and apostasy laws given there have been open atheists in both government, media and society. A closer look therefore gave me this:Criticizing an entire religion can and sometimes falls under criticizing its core method of delivery. The book of choice. Religious people will and do feel offended at times even if you aren't specifically addressing them because you may have taken to task passages in their book or made comments on others within their religion. Or said something about their God, aka blasphemy. It often operates like an in-group mentality, or as Christians call it, a flock.
But sure, when being critical one always has to make sure not to unfairly generalize or go after someone personally who doesn't deserve your ire. To look at the polls above however and say the vast majority of Christians in America oppose gay marriage should not be conflated with painting everyone the same, but it sometimes is. This goes for the Islamic world as well when at times people are simply looking at polls and commenting on how 98% of a country can say homosexuality should be illegal or punishable.
Let's not forget apostasy laws and blasphemy laws are still things
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/
That's right. The current blasphemy laws in Pakistan were first introduced and enforced by the BRITISH. This is true of the laws against homosexuality in India as well. Before the British came to India, the country was rather liberal with regards to sexual proclivities - it's where the Kamasutra was written. There are several Hindu texts that have Gods engaging in homosexual sex, there are transgender Hindu Gods and there are carvings in Hindu temples of people engaging in homosexual sex. It was the British who made homosexuality illegal in India and that continues to this day.
These are not the same things. Harris says there is data that suggests differences amongst groups are partially due to genetics (he never ever claims the data suggests it's purely genetics, and neither does Murray. That was never the claim in dispute). This is actually a rather milquetoast claim as the data does suggest that (not prove). Harris's big deal is simply ensuring that the data can be talked about and, if necessary, proven wrong on its own merits. This is his point, which Ezra totally avoided because he knew he didn't have an answer, with the Neanderthal point. It turns out Neanderthal DNA is in everyone...except black people. This news was shared and even celebrated by the left as a sort of victory. But if the data had broken the other way, the leftist media would have done all it could to bury it and villify any scientists looking to discuss it. In essence, what this means is that the actual science is totally besides the point for outlets like Vox; what matters is the agenda.
I never said he did claim it's purely genetics. I said he agreed with Murray that it's 50%-80% due to genetics. And, of course, Harris does believe that the differences in IQ across groups are partially due to genetics.
So if you agree with Harris's claims why are you trying to pretend he didn't make them?
"If this thing that didn't happen would have happened, then people I don't like would have behaved in this way they didn't, because the thing didn't happen" is one of the stupidest arguments ever put to print.
Harris wasn't "trained in rational thought and formal logic." Harris's "training" is being a trustafarian who did a bunch of drugs and buying a Ph.D in neuroscience with a joke of a dissertation.
I didn't? Did you think I was the other poster? Harris does say the data suggests genetics play a part. Or at least he claims that the data is a fairly widely accepted within the scientific community, not having the scientific expertise to confirm or refute it.
But they did behave that way when something broke against the grain, which is the entire point of the Klein/Harris squabble. And when scientists came out and defended the data, Klein didn't see fit to publish that. So it's actually not stupid at all, and you didn't address it with a counter-argument because you don't have one. That's ok, because neither did Klein.
Oh, I wasn't pointing to his Ph.D with that. I don't really care about his Ph.D except insofar as it does make him knowledgeable of neuroscience, if not an expert. What Harris values and how he operates in debate form is in line with philosophical debate, which is not the style of conversation you get from Klein. That wasn't meant to imbue Harris with authority but to point out what he values in discussion vs. what someone with Ezra does. This goes a long way to explaining why they mostly talk past each other in the podcast.
I said Harris claims that genetics play a role in lowered measured IQ among blacks. You said he didn't as far as I can tell (your posts are not models of clarity). Are you now conceding he did?
There is no counter-argument to something you made up other than pointing it out for the bullshit that it is. You and Harris just assume "the left" would act in some way you don't like if something that never happened did happen. It isn't an argument, it's just a whine.
Then why did you claim he was "trained in rational thought and formal logic." What training could you possibly have been referring to if not his short and undistinguished academic career? In any event his public engagement isn't in line with philosophical debate at all. Philosophical debate is much more precise, narrow, and technical. What Harris does is just standard-issue punditry. He's no different than Klein.
Klein thinks Harris should be more skeptical of the data and the conclusions drawn from it, but because Harris becomes a starry-eyed teenager whenever someone waves something that looks like science at him, he never will be. And of course because Harris's primary engagement with anyone to his left is deeply influenced and motivated by his personal hurt feelings that people on the left have been mean to him on occasion, and his ability to take umbrage at perceived slights is without equal, he's incapable of a good-faith conversation about this or almost anything else political.
Then you said this: "So you’re simply wrong to assert thst Harris never claimed that black people as a group have lower IQs due to genetics." As a matter of being more clear than you were, that is not shown by you saying that Harris believes they play a part. That is a different statement. So please drop the "be more clear" stuff when I originally replied to you being imprecise.
The response by leftist media, and Vox in particular, to drown out the data because they didn't like the social policy Murray was trying to draw from it. You know, the entire reason Harris and Klein are squabbling, which I said. How's that imprecise? It's the background of their conflict which you claim to know.
Their differences are evident from their discussion. Both Klein and Harris would tell you they have different priorities, and this informs their argumentative style (when hot-headedness doesn't get in the way, as you say below). As for the training: academia is not the only form of it, unless you would say that Harris isn't "trained" in meditative practices just because it was a personal action and not professional. If, however, you don't respect any training outside of academia, then fair enough and I don't find a need to debate it.
Of course. And so is Klein. Their pod was interesting not because either had anything terribly illuminating to say on the subject (since neither are scientists in the field) but because it illustrated how two different minds can look at the same problem and, due to differing priorities, come to different conclusions.
THIS. People hating on Maher don't watch his show regularly. This place and the old place has a very skewed perspective of him and his show. He's done more for the left than all of us combined here.
So your complaint is that I didn't insert the words "in part" between "IQs" and "due"? I made clear that Harris claims that IQ is 50%-80% responsible for IQ. I assumed, apparently wrongly, that readers could understand context.
The Bell Curve was published in 1993, long before Vox was around, so it's unclear how Vox could have been trying to "drown out" data that was published 25 years ago and widely discussed at the time. Your attempt to impugn Klein's motives makes no sense.
Of course you find it to be a reasonable claim because you, like Harris, seem to have swallowed the narrative of of the "leftist media" boogey man trying to suppress mah free speech and open discourse. You agree with the conclusion so of course you find the nonsense counterfactual made in support of it persuasive. You agreement, however, with a baseless counterfactual makes it no less baseless.
Yes, Klein thinks we should be skeptical of "science" that purports to prove black people are inferior to white people, given that many attempts have been made to prove that same conclusion and they have all been shown to be bullshit. Harris thinks that critical skepticism of this type of thing is actually politically correct suppression of free speech. Apparently it is only religious claims that deserve skepticism, and anything claiming to be science should be embraced uncritically.
The original piece, which Klein signed off on, is an attempt to align both Murray and Harris with right-wing racism. It does this sort of by discussing the data, but also by making fairly obvious leaps of logic and assumed motivation to paint the discussion on the podcast as insidious (in case you're unaware, it was the podcast with Harris that brought Vox into this). This is obvious by the clickbait title of the article itself, as well as Turkheimer apologizing about some of the things said in the actual piece because he knew they were unsupported and out of line. They were branding the actual data as racist, and therefore those willing to discuss it as suspect by affiliation. Harris doesn't believe it was and that therefore discussion of it shouldn't be maligned, whereas Vox very clearly believed that the data itself was anathema.
Klein was troubled by a prominent figure (who should have known better) presenting old racist ideas as indisputable fact when, of course, plenty of people have already refuted them. Wow what an agenda to have. I don't know how people can listen to Harris and aren't bothered by him: seriously suggest that black people are less intelligent than whites because of their genes; say that this incredibly successful and well-known policy entrepreneur has somehow been suppressed by the PC left; and do no research about the multitude of other academics who have disputed his findings. That's the problem I have. He invites this racist on his show who spouts "scientific" racism and then just kind of lets him say whatever he wants and rather than confront him about these ideas, suggests that the left are the ones in denial about white superiority.
This is a completely bullshit characterization of the Turkheimer/Hardin/Nisbett piece. To such an extent that I suspect you haven't read it.
Turkheimer apologized for calling it "junk science" in an effort to "turn down the heat," and there is an addendum where they say they don't want people to think that Harris didn't address the Flynn effect, but rather that he did so inadequately. This is a poor attempt by you to try to discredit the entire piece. Do you have any actual arguments against it based on what it actually says (as opposed to impugning the authors' motives) aside from complaining about the title?
This, again, is complete bullshit. They said Murray's conclusions were unsupported by the data, not that the data was racist.
Klein was under no obligation to defuse anything. Harris had a guest on who was making bad arguments in favor of black intellectual inferiority, Harris was almost entirely uncritical of him, and Vox ran a piece criticizing that. Klein wasn't obligated to talk about this stupid Neanderthal thing which has really no bearing on whether Murray or Turkheimer et al or right.
The suggestion is that one should be very critical and skeptical when policy entrepeneurs attempt to use what they claim is science to push their political agenda. Harris was a dupe (due to his own obsession with allegedly censorious political correctness) and blithely nodded along while Murray did just that. Klein was entirely correct to run a piece pointing it out.
The title is indicative of the tone of the piece. I actually enjoy the first part aside from some phrasing here and there because it represents precisely the sort of back and forth that should be going on. It's when they start discussing the moral implications of the discussion in the second part that the piece becomes troublesome. Particularly, raising the question of Murray's motivation for presenting the information and Harris's motivation for not challenging him enough on it (leaving the reader in a wink wink position to fill in the blanks, but more than anything this part:
Harris characterizes this passage to Klein as: "you were asking us to prove that we aren't Nazis." That's a strong reading of what the passage is bringing up and I probably wouldn't go as far, but the purpose of this passage is still clear: to align the interpretation of the data with previous historical attempts at racist race science and suggest to the reader that it isn't different. Again, considering this is Vox and social policy is clearly a large concern, it would make sense why this is brought up. And considering Murray's social policy recommendations, they are not even wrong about his motivation. But the conflation of data interpretation and policy making is problematic. The piece is suggesting that not only are anti-minority policies formed from data morally wrong, but discussing the data and concluding genetic differences is morally wrong as well. You can easily follow this line of thinking to its logical end, expressed by typical low-effort internet discussion assuming motivation: SAY WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN.
Actually, he kinda was, because he went on Harris's podcast and that's where Harris brought it up. Refusing to engage with the thought experiment at all is a sign of bad faith.
"Agenda" here doesn't need to be some nefarious term. You can have an agenda and not be ethically unscrupulous or suspect. It would be very weird for a policy thinker to not have an agenda, perhaps even impossible. So Klein has one. So does Harris. It's a matter of how you go about promoting it. And I don't think either has been really successful in coming out looking good.
It's actually not suggesting that discussing the data is morally wrong. It is in fact suggesting that if you are going to argue that it's a scientific fact that blacks are dumber than whites, you had better be on solid footing empirically and logically, which the authors have just gone through arguing is not the case in Murray's work. That is a reasonable thing to demand to anyone who has ever opened a history book, however much it may offend poor Sam Harris.
So what? Turkheimer explains why they view it as junk science. It's not as though the argument in the article doesn't support the headline. The headline isn't misleading. You asserting that the tone of a headline is a "pretty damn big deal" does not make it so.
Refusing to engage in the "thought experiment" that is the rhetorical equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife" is not bad faith. If anything, Harris demanding that Klein answer for conduct that nobody engaged in, let alone Klein, is bad faith.
Vox published a piece showing that the "data" was not actually inconvenient to progressive values, and that Murray was abusing it. Why are they obligated to respond to the charge that they ignore data inconvenient to progressive values when they did no such thing? Why are they required to pretend that Murray is right on the science when they clearly don't think he is?
One side: let me interview this guy who will explain why blacks are stupid while I uncritically agree with him.
I've listened to the Forbidden knowledge podcast today. I have to say that this podcast actually reinforces my view that Harris is clearly not a racist or a bigot. Furthermore, based on what Murray said during the podcast, I fail to see how he's a racist or a bigot.
Yes, but does Buddhist religious text actually say things like - Strike down the unbeliever or divorce women because they are not obedient to God etc.? That was my question. I know about extremist monks trying to kick muslims out of their country.
