Open minds?

[nige1]

Strange. I think I captured your views perfectly. You expressly claim that it is 'OK' to hold beliefs that are unsupported by evidence. You state that you 'can't believe that homosexuality is innate'.

 

A moment's research,using google, would lead you to learn that the majority of non-religious experts on the subject see compelling evidence that homosexuality has a significant innate component. The only experts who seem to disagree are those with a clear religious bias. As is so often the case, religion obstructs rational thinking.

 

You are either happy to cling to an unsupported belief without looking into the evidence that would show you your error, or you are allowing your desire that your religious beliefs be correct to cause you to find objective evidence to be unacceptable. In either case, you are exhibiting a way of thinking that is prototypically that of a bigot. I assume that in social interaction you suppress the expression of these beliefs out of some sense of decency.

 

As for impugning your knowledge.....you do that yourself by your own words. It is ridiculous for you to announce that you 'cannot believe' something for which there is readily available and compelling evidence and then claim that your knowledge or motives are being unfairly described. You want people to applaud your wilful ignorance? Go to a website for people who reject evidence that contradicts their prejudices. That is who you are, by your own admission.

 

Ask yourself this: why is it that you feel that you 'cannot' believe that homosexuality is innate? You were already challenged to answer that question, and it is telling that you have ducked the question, while whining that you have been unfairly called out for thinking, not acting, like a bigot. Sorry, but the way to avoid being called a bigot is to stop exhibiting bigoted thinking.

 

Btw, you reveal more of your ignorance when you suggest that we can't prove that ideas such as human rights can be shown logically to be a good thing (I am paraphrasing). This sort of statement is often made by the religious who claim that morality is something that is to be imposed or learned from religion. In fact, a moment's research would lead you to a number of explanations for the existence of morality, including by extension, the notion that humans owe each other ethical obligations known as human rights. The fact that you appear to be unaware of these arguments reflects not on the lack of such arguments but on your knowledge. When someone makes statements of belief without appearing to have any interest in whether his statements are valid, then that person should expect to be called out for his ignorance. You don't like it? Then open your mind to the notion that your beliefs may be invalid.

 

Keeping your mind firmly closed by rejecting evidence that conflicts with your belief structure or refraining from searching it out when challenged merely reinforces the validity of my description of you. I do find it ironic that someone can make the claim that he rejects a concept because he 'cannot believe' it and simultaneously proclaim that his views are based on evidence :P

More ad hominem attacks :(

[mikeh]

More ad hominem attacks :(

I don't think you grasp the idea that when one expresses one's thoughts, a criticism of those thoughts is not ad hominem.

[nige1]

I don't think you grasp the idea that when one expresses one's thoughts, a criticism of those thoughts is not ad hominem.

And another :(

[mikeh]

ok, maybe an example will indicate what I meant.

 

Imagine nige1 answering a bridge problem and advising that a 4♠ call gets a score of 10 and 4♦ a score of 6. Imagine that I think that 4♦ is far superior.

 

If nige1 had laid out reasons for his choices, I could address his post in two ways.

 

I could point out that in a recent thread he stated that he believed that one's ethnic background gave a guide to one's cognitive abilities, That way of thinking arguably reflects a racist attitude if nige1 can point to no generally scientifically accepted evidence to support his thinking. I could point out that without reference to any evidence he has stated that he refuses to believe that sexuality is innate, and has failed to respond to a request that he explain why he believes as he does. That way of thinking arguably reflects homophobia, in that the particular area of sexuality to which he refers is homosexuality.

 

I could then assert that his attitudes in these areas reveal him to be a nasty human being and I would argue, expressly or by innuendo, that his bridge ideas are unworthy of respect because of who he is.

 

I don't think I have ever made such a response to anyone on any topic in any part of my life, and if I have, I would be embarrassed.

 

On the other hand, I could point out bridge reasons for rejecting his bridge thinking.

 

The former would be ad hominem. The latter would not.

 

In this thread, nige1 started by offering a provocative statement. I posted that I would defend his right to hold the beliefs he expressed, even tho anyone familiar with my WC posts would know that they were anathema to me. However, by making his post, and further posts in the thread, imo, he invited criticisms of those beliefs, and it is inappropriate for him to duck those criticisms by claiming that the attacks were on him as a person rather than his beliefs as posted by him here.

 

This is the last post I will make on this now-tedious thread. As I stated earlier, I hope that I am mistaken in drawing the inferences of racism and homophobia that, to me, seemed to arise from the beliefs and attitudes claimed by nige1, and I readily admit that I may well be wrong. What I don't admit is that it is ad hominem to draw those inferences or to call him out on them. Should I or anyone pretend not to see those notions in what he posted, when we do? If I misunderstood him, then better I tell him my thinking and let him correct me through reasoned dialogue than that I or others write him off as a bigot. While, if he is a bigot, then it is only right to call him out. Unfortunately, he has chosen to avoid explaining himself, which makes it difficult to see how I was mistaken.

[hrothgar]

And another :(

 

Nigel, all you are doing is demonstrating that you don't have a clue what the expression ad hominem means.

 

I know that phrase "ad hominem" has become something of a rallying cry for the stupid who now demand respect.

 

It actually means something very different. The fact that you are so very confused about this is simply another signal indicating that your opinions should be marginalized.

[barmar]

Certainly a homosexual woman can have a child by use of a sperm donor, I know of it being done. Of course the genetics are the woman's and the unknown donor, not the couple,

That's a very recent development, only available for about 2 generations. Natural selection involves hundreds of generations.

[kenberg]

That's a very recent development, only available for about 2 generations. Natural selection involves hundreds of generations.

 

Right. I wasn't thinking in terms of how a gay gene might or might not be maintained, I was only thinking of what issues confront a gay couple who wish to have children. Adoption is one answer but there is, for women, this other answer. Looking back I see it is not on topic, as the topic has developed.

[nige1]

Nigel, all you are doing is demonstrating that you don't have a clue what the expression ad hominem means.I know that phrase "ad hominem" has become something of a rallying cry for the stupid who now demand respect. It actually means something very different. The fact that you are so very confused about this is simply another signal indicating that you opinions should be marginalized.

Mikeh's posts about me and this post by Hrothgar are examples of "ad hominem", a phrase that I employ in the dictionary sense.

ad hominem

1. A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
2. A personal attack.

As previously explained in this thread, my view on the claim that Homosexuality is innate is

• On the evidence, of which I'm aware, I can't believe it.
• Convincing evidence and argument would change my mind.

Another example is the proposition that God exists.

• On available evidence, some can't believe it..
• That doesn't imply that they are stupid, ignorant, bigoted, malicious or whatever.
• Convincing new evidence or argument might change their minds.
• Finally, even were they stupid, ignorant, bigoted, and malicious, it wouldn't affect the truth or falsehood of the proposition .

[Trinidad]

?!?

 

Do I understand that you claim to have evidence that:

- homosexuality is not innate

- God exists

 

I would like to see that evidence.

 

I will not get into a God discussion, but the least I can say that homosexuality is certainly not exclusive to humans. If you look at animals, you see homosexuality (and other non-heterosexual behavior) anywhere: cows, dogs, whatever.

 

Is there anybody who doesn't know that dogs even like "doing it" with humans from time to time? You believe that dogs have somehow learned that behavior? Who taught them that?

 

If non-heterosexual behavior is all around us in the animal world, which means that at least in these animals it would seem to be innate, what makes you think that it wouldn't be innate in animals of the species Homo Sapiens? You need to have pretty good evidence to claim such an exceptional position for Homo Sapiens. I am curious...

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

nige1, you ignorant slut!

 

That's another.

[hrothgar]

ad hominem

 

A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.

 

A personal attack.

 

 

Let us first dispense with the second of these two line items. An ad hominem attack is not a synonym for a "personal" attack.

Not all personal attacks are ad hominem attacks.

 

More trustworthy sources such as Websters don't include this in their definition.

 

appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

 

Let's turn to the first part of the definition you offer. See the word "fallacious"? This is critical to understanding the definition.

An attack is only an ad hominem attack if it focuses on characteristics of the individual that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand or unwarranted.

 

For example "Bobby Fisher is a vile anti Semite. He knows nothing about the game of chess." is an obvious ad hominem attack.

(Regardless of whether or not Fisher is an anti Semite, this possession of this information has no bearing on his skills at chess)

 

On the other hand consider the following "Jim Bob never passed second grade math and doesn't believe that fractions exist. He is a poor choice to hire as a math teacher."

This is a personal attack. However, it is not an ad hominem attack because "passing second grade math" and believing in fractions are both related to question "Is Jim Bob qualified to work as a math teacher".

 

In the posting that I made about you, I stated that you don't understand the meaning of an ad hominem attack and inferred that you are a stupid person.

In this example, there is a direct link between not understanding the phrase ad hominem attack and being stupid.

 

Therefore, this is another example where the attack is personal, but not ad hominem.

 

I hope that this has been helpful. Please feel free to follow up if you have any other questions.

[Vampyr]

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

 

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

 

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

 

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

[kenberg]

Nige

 

I don't usually try to hang people on their exact choice of words but in your original post you "confessed" that you cannot believe that homosexuality is innate. That perhaps settles it. You can't believe it.

 

On to God, for the analogy. I can't believe that God exists. Now do I really mean this? Well, I suppose I can imagine circumstances under which I would change my mind, I have absolutely no reason to expect such circumstances to ever appear. So what I really mean is "If you come to my door and try to convince me that God exists I may or may not listen, I may or may not be polite, but I am extremely confident that when you finally go away, I will still believe that there is no God".

 

Back to homosexuality. Whatever you have in mind for evidence, it is very unlikely that any regular poster here will change your mind. If you take a year or two off from your job to fully look into it, you might or might not change your mind. But a few casual posts surely won't do it.

 

For me, the issue of whether homosexuality is or is not innate is not very important. I am not even sure what "innate" means here. Certainly some people are attracted to members of the same sex, and that's innate enough for me.

 

Now the existence of God could be important, depending on which God and depending on how easygoing He is about my failure to believe in Him. But really, it is a waste of time to try to convert me.

[nige1]

Do I understand that you claim to have evidence that:

- homosexuality is not innate

- God exists

I would like to see that evidence.

I made neither claim. On the contrary, as I've explained before, AFIK:

• There's no convincing evidence for either of the propositions or their negations.
• But there's no harm in believing either way.

I will not get into a God discussion, but the least I can say that homosexuality is certainly not exclusive to humans. If you look at animals, you see homosexuality (and other non-heterosexual behavior) anywhere: cows, dogs, whatever.

Is there anybody who doesn't know that dogs even like "doing it" with humans from time to time? You believe that dogs have somehow learned that behavior? Who taught them that?

If non-heterosexual behavior is all around us in the animal world, which means that at least in these animals it would seem to be innate, what makes you think that it wouldn't be innate in animals of the species Homo Sapiens? You need to have pretty good evidence to claim such an exceptional position for Homo Sapiens. I am curious...

Thank you, Trinidad for your evidence-based argument. Animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, when heterosexual satisfaction is difficult. The same applies to humans (for example, in same-sex environments). I agree that there's a spectrum between homosexuality and heterosexuality. What I can't believe (without further evidence) is that a homosexual rather than heterosexual preference can be innate (for the reasons mentioned by Helene_t).

[nige1]

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

 

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

 

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

I've read similar studies e.g. on

Ethnicity, gender, and academic achievement (see page 4)

but there seem to be few available recent studies.

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

Judging from replies so far, yes :(

[kenberg]

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

 

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

 

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

 

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

 

 

A note:

nige mentions Eysenk in his first post. He wrote a book called Know your own IQ. So I bought it and took the first of several tests. In the back of the book he suggests suitable career paths based on the result. For me he suggested semi-skilled labor. I was a graduate student in mathematics and had recently passed my quals, so I threw the book away. I actually enjoy semi-skilled labor, it's relaxing, but I figured that I would stick with the x and the y.

 

Now can we investigate such matters? I suppose so, if we must.

 

The other IQ story I like: I was dating a girl in high school who had a part time job at the courthouse. This gave her (illegal) access to records. She proudly announced that she had looked up my IQ and hers was higher.

 

You can probably tell that I am not a great fan of IQ tests, although I acknowledge that this gal was quite possibly smarter than I was.

[mikeh]

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

 

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

 

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

 

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

 

I am not sure on that, but I suspect the answer is 'yes'.

 

Consider: during WWII, some doctors in the German concentration camp system performed a lot of experiments. For example, and far from the most abhorrent, they immersed prisoners in ice water for varying periods of time and then applied different forms of treatment. There was a 'legitimate' purpose to this, and it wasn't just about torturing their subjects. Air force personnel and seamen were often required to abandon their plane or ship/submarine in the cold waters of the Baltic, the North Sea, the Atlantic and so on, and hypothermia was little understood. I gather that to this day the human data obtained by these doctors is unique....for what I trust are obvious reasons, the research was not duplicated. The result was an ethical controversy within the medical profession post-war: should we use this data or should we refuse due to the horrific circumstances in which it was collected? After all, even if the experimenters found something that 'worked', they'd move onto another experiment and the subject sooner or later died a nasty death.

 

However, the notion that there may be innate cognitive differences associated with different ethnic backgrounds doesn't seem to me to be at all abhorrent, for two reasons.

 

The first is that as I understand matters, nobody, other than the most rabid racists, would suggest that the best of one category would be worse than the least of another. We are speaking of large populations, with wide variety within populations. We are speaking of complex topics when we speak of intelligence.

 

At best, the proponents of the notion that there are genetically based cognitive differences between genders and between ethnic groups argue that on average such differences can be seen measured across populations. I know of no-one, other than bigots, who would argue that it is impossible for a woman to be as smart as a man, or that it is impossible for a white person to be as mathematically gifted as an 'oriental'.

 

Thus at one level, admittedly probably not the level at which the media and racists would discuss the notion, the question of whether such differences exist should have no impact, since we should judge all individuals based on who they are, and what abilities they possess, and not on whether that individual is male, female, Asian, African, etc.

 

The second reason is that a lot of people already believe that such differences exist, and base their attitudes on this. There is compelling evidence that populations asserted by some to be inferior will be influenced in their performance by that cultural belief.

 

It may be my bias, rather than rational argument, but I suspect that a properly designed testing of these alleged differences would reveal that it is impossible to demonstrate any significant difference between the sexes or 'races' once one eliminates or accounts for the effect of culture.

 

However, and I repeat myself: even if significant differences were revealed, in no rational society would this be justification for systemic discrimination against anyone.

[nige1]

I don't usually try to hang people on their exact choice of words but in your original post you "confessed" that you cannot believe that homosexuality is innate. That perhaps settles it. You can't believe it.

I lack evidence for some of my beliefs. But I prefer my beliefs to be evidence-based. Lacking evidence that homosexuality is innate, I can't believe it.

On to God, for the analogy. I can't believe that God exists. Now do I really mean this? Well, I suppose I can imagine circumstances under which I would change my mind, I have absolutely no reason to expect such circumstances to ever appear. So what I really mean is "If you come to my door and try to convince me that God exists I may or may not listen, I may or may not be polite, but I am extremely confident that when you finally go away, I will still believe that there is no God".

Back to homosexuality. Whatever you have in mind for evidence, it is very unlikely that any regular poster here will change your mind. If you take a year or two off from your job to fully look into it, you might or might not change your mind. But a few casual posts surely won't do it.

For me, the issue of whether homosexuality is or is not innate is not very important. I am not even sure what "innate" means here. Certainly some people are attracted to members of the same sex, and that's innate enough for me.

Now the existence of God could be important, depending on which God and depending on how easygoing He is about my failure to believe in Him. But really, it is a waste of time to try to convert me.

Our beliefs are our prerogative :)

 

 

 

[nige1]

ok, maybe an example will indicate what I meant.

 

Imagine nige1 answering a bridge problem and advising that a 4♠ call gets a score of 10 and 4♦ a score of 6. Imagine that I think that 4♦ is far superior.

 

If nige1 had laid out reasons for his choices, I could address his post in two ways.

 

I could point out that in a recent thread he stated that he believed that one's ethnic background gave a guide to one's cognitive abilities, That way of thinking arguably reflects a racist attitude if nige1 can point to no generally scientifically accepted evidence to support his thinking. I could point out that without reference to any evidence he has stated that he refuses to believe that sexuality is innate, and has failed to respond to a request that he explain why he believes as he does. That way of thinking arguably reflects homophobia, in that the particular area of sexuality to which he refers is homosexuality.

 

I could then assert that his attitudes in these areas reveal him to be a nasty human being and I would argue, expressly or by innuendo, that his bridge ideas are unworthy of respect because of who he is.

 

I don't think I have ever made such a response to anyone on any topic in any part of my life, and if I have, I would be embarrassed.

 

On the other hand, I could point out bridge reasons for rejecting his bridge thinking.

 

The former would be ad hominem. The latter would not.

 

In this thread, nige1 started by offering a provocative statement. I posted that I would defend his right to hold the beliefs he expressed, even tho anyone familiar with my WC posts would know that they were anathema to me. However, by making his post, and further posts in the thread, imo, he invited criticisms of those beliefs, and it is inappropriate for him to duck those criticisms by claiming that the attacks were on him as a person rather than his beliefs as posted by him here.

 

This is the last post I will make on this now-tedious thread. As I stated earlier, I hope that I am mistaken in drawing the inferences of racism and homophobia that, to me, seemed to arise from the beliefs and attitudes claimed by nige1, and I readily admit that I may well be wrong. What I don't admit is that it is ad hominem to draw those inferences or to call him out on them. Should I or anyone pretend not to see those notions in what he posted, when we do? If I misunderstood him, then better I tell him my thinking and let him correct me through reasoned dialogue than that I or others write him off as a bigot. While, if he is a bigot, then it is only right to call him out. Unfortunately, he has chosen to avoid explaining himself, which makes it difficult to see how I was mistaken.

:)

[billw55]

I lack evidence for some of my beliefs. But I prefer my beliefs to be evidence-based. Lacking evidence that homosexuality is innate, I can't believe it.

 

I am curious. Would you also say that, lacking evidence that homosexuality is an acquired characteristic, you cannot believe it?

[nige1]

I am curious. Would you also say that, lacking evidence that homosexuality is an acquired characteristic, you cannot believe it?

So far, most people seem to believe it's innate. I've admitted before that I'm uncertain about most things. I've few beliefs.

 

I feel that homosexuality is more likely to be an acquired preference. I wouldn't bet on it. I'd be interested in the results of more research.

[mikeh]

So far, most people seem to believe it's innate. I've admitted before that I'm uncertain about most things. I've few beliefs.

 

I feel that homosexuality is more likely to be an acquired preference. I wouldn't bet on it. I'd be interested in the results of more research.

acquired how?

 

I know, I said I wouldn't post more in response to you, but this post made me laugh. Just how we do picture all these gays getting exposed to and experimenting with feeling attracted to people of the same sex?

 

Bear in mind that in many cultures today, being gay leads to extreme social discrimination, up to and including prison sentences, forced castration, and death sentences, yet somehow people in those countries still end up 'preferring' to be gay?

 

Even in 'enlightened' western society, gays are often the target of abuse from religious leaders (and followers) and politicians, and rejection by family, including parents and siblings.

 

So please, explain to us the evidence that leads you to the 'feeling' that homosexuality is an acquired preference?

 

The reality appears to be that many gay men, perhaps not as often these days where gay rights actually exist, would do almost anything to be straight, including living lives of quiet desperation, deep within the closet....including, all too often, taking political and religious stances decrying that very same 'preference' that you say they must have acquired.

 

Btw, I assume you identify as a straight male. Can you recall precisely when you made the intellectual decision that you'd rather be physically attracted to females than to other males? I mean, if same-sex attraction is an acquired preference, why is opposite-sex attraction any different?

 

Here's a wild guess: you aren't 'sure about anything', including your 'feelings' or your 'inability to believe' and it is ad hominem to claim that you are a not very well hidden homophobe, racist and sexist bigot, because all you say is that it is 'OK' to hold homophobic, racist and sexist beliefs, not that you hold them personally.

[kenberg]

I am taking the liberty of keeping only a few of the sentences, mike's complete in sight is a few posts back.

I am not sure on that, but I suspect the answer is 'yes'.

 

Consider: during WWII, some doctors in the German concentration camp system performed a lot of experiments....

 

Definitely some experiments are forbidden. If a topic cannot be investigated w/o performing unacceptable experiments, then it cannot be done.

 

 

However, the notion that there may be innate cognitive differences associated with different ethnic backgrounds doesn't seem to me to be at all abhorrent, for two reasons....

 

Generally I agree. I think if we look sufficiently hard for differences, surely we will find some somewhere. Maybe Italians on average are shorter than Norwegians. My model for this really is my father. I never saw him treat another man differently based on race. Like many of his generation (1900-1977) he thought that black people should marry black people, white people should marry white people, Catholics should marry Catholics and so on. But in day to day living, he treated a person as a person.

 

 

It may be my bias, rather than rational argument, but I suspect that a properly designed testing of these alleged differences would reveal that it is impossible to demonstrate any significant difference between the sexes or 'races' once one eliminates or accounts for the effect of culture.

 

However, and I repeat myself: even if significant differences were revealed, in no rational society would this be justification for systemic discrimination against anyone.

 

The problem is this: If we are to judge ourselves and our programs by whether we do or do not have proportional representation in, say, mathematics departments at high level schools Princeton, Cal Tech etc then equal mathematical ability, or the lack thereof, becomes an issue. I much, much, much prefer to judge individuals. It's a little know fact, but there are people out there who actually don't want to become mathematicians even if they could.

 

Some differences in opportunity are so stark you don't need a magnifying glass to see them. If we ever get the system so that African Americans have an equal shot at good elementary and secondary education then, after a generation or two, or three, we can look at differences in ability. That's if for some reason we feel that we really must.

[hrothgar]

Going back to a bit earlier in the thread.... I am sure we all remember the publication of the book The Bell Curve and the furore that accompanied it. I have never read the book, but I am sure that a graph like this would be consistent with its findings:

 

http://www.my-iq.net/images/700-1.png

 

This image is very popular and is used on numerous websites. Now, ignoring all of the problems associated with the production of this graph, suppose there seemed to be some truth in the differences in intelligence and it seemed that it might be genetic. Would it be considered taboo to do any research to investigate whether this was true?

 

Are there things we consider too abhorrent to even investigate?

 

The earlier reference to even USING / REFERENCING the "research" that the Nazi's performed in the death camps seems telling...

 

Given the information that we currently have, I think that further research on the relationship between race and intelligence falls into a similar category.

In my experience, this just doesn't lead to productive discussions.

[RMB1]

Godwin