If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

How ever will we survive without women's Olympic hockey?

 

[rms]

the usa v womens final is usually cool, and I can't really make an opinion on the issue since the plaintiffs decided not to provide any evidence

but it's weird that the only nations with competitive women are USA, Canada and Japan in basically any sport. Which is funded purely by tax payers and revenue from professional male leagues (at least in the US), but it's never enuff

 

[Einherjar86]

Can you quote/describe the portion that mentions how he determined that there is no hereditary limit on intelligence? He cites adoption studies as one example in the abstract, but several studies have come out since then showing that identical twins have more correlated IQs than a child with an adoptive sibling. All he seems to say is that adoption/upbringing can influence intelligence, which as I've said multiple times now is obviously true, just not necessarily the most important factor determining an upper limit.

So because I'm interested in this stuff, I got a hold of a physical copy of this book. He cites adoption studies, long-term cohort effects on IQ, and the impact of schooling on mental abilities. Nothing, as far as I can tell, supports the claim that two individuals who come from parents with significantly different mean IQs, whose environmental experiences are comparable, will yield results on IQ tests that reflect a hereditary difference. Wahlsten says that this claim confuses "heritability and fixity."

Additionally, one of the early essays in the collection says this:

The current thinking holds that IQ is partially determined by genes, although the mechanism by which genes affect IQ and the degree to which they affect IQ is by no means clear. No one would dispute that intelligence must drive economic and social success to some degree. So perhaps genes do contribute to economic and social success. We have no argument with that ambiguous statement. But Herrnstein and Murray invest a significance in genes that goes far beyond anything supported by the data, and in that we do find fault.

 

[CiG]

Lately the alt-right have been reminding me just how left-wing I am (as far as compass-based labels can be used, realistically).

The fact that they seem inexplicably drawn to specifically ethno-nationalism (as opposed to in my opinion the much more sane and realistic civic-nationalism) and obsess over IQ differentiation based on race (as they see it) repels me so fundamentally.

Also, their ideological purity is just ridiculous to say the least.

 

[Dak]

I think IQ and particularly race are important because people think they are important - and this isn't simply a "white" thing ("whiteness" is as useless as "blackness" in differentiating race and especially IQ). Culture is certainly more important (which we think of more concretely in terms of civics/ideology), but we use the heuristics of "race" as a shortcut, as we are much more concerned with false positives than false negatives.

 

[CiG]

Definitely not as bad as the Christians and Jews.

 

[Einherjar86]

I can't watch that entire thing when he says that sane people should be opposed to Islam and then goes on to cite stats as though Muslims believing that homosexuality is "morally wrong" automatically translates into the belief that homosexuals should be executed.

Homosexuality is becoming increasingly accepted among American Christians, that is true--something around half of American Christians believe homosexuality should be accepted. But that doesn't mean the other 50% believes that homosexuals should be executed for their sins. One main reason for that is that we have secular law in the West, which has prohibited the persecution of individuals on religious grounds (this is only a recent completion--recall that Alan Turing was sentenced to chemical castration in 1952 in England because homosexual behavior was illegal). Secular law has allowed homosexuality to become more visible in the West, which has in turn led to it being accepted. There is absolutely no reason why a similar shift in Middle-Eastern countries, provided they had the legal infrastructure to support it, wouldn't yield similar results for Muslims.

Obviously there's an imbalance between the treatment of homosexuals in the West and in the Middle East. None of that is an argument for why Islam should be opposed by "sane people." There is an incredibly important geopolitical distinction to make between Muslims of different countries, particularly Western and Middle-Eastern countries; and this distinction often includes non-religious elements.

I think this is a pretty decent piece on Islamic intolerance of homosexuality:

https://newrepublic.com/article/119...r-ben-affleck-islam-debate-misses-lgbt-rights

There is near unanimity of opinion regarding LGBT rights in places where Islam holds power: that it's sinful and, more often than not, punishable by law. Even in countries where consensual homosexual activity is de facto legal, there is scant evidence of an openly gay populace, let alone examples of influential voices speaking up or influencing government policy to advance LGBT equality. The lives of LGBT people in so many of these nations is characterized by silence, humiliation, shame and erasure.

These cultural norms are deeply engrained. In most of these nations, upwards of 90 percent of people consider homosexual activity morally wrong. With these states acting as enforcers of a moral code roundly accepted by their people, even the discussion of LGBT rights is pretty much a non-starter. To paraphrase Harvey Milk, the key to increasing acceptance of gays anywhere is to increase LGBT visibility within communities. But this seems a near-impossible task in much of the Muslim world.

Aslan is right to chastise the critics of religion who, as he writes in the Times, “scour holy texts for bits of savagery and point to extreme examples of religious bigotry...to generalize about the causes of oppression throughout the world." Surely criticizing any religion in the 21st century, based on a holy text written centuries ago, seems disingenuous. Still, it's not disingenuous to point out that outside of the Muslim world, holy texts do not hold that much sway over governing bodies. The Old Testament is full of extremism and violence—but no reasonable argument can be made that Israeli law adheres much to the Old Testament. Some argue that Islam's position on gays is similar to the Vatican's in many ways. But that is misleading, too. As influential as the Vatican is, it's power of governance is quite limited. Most countries where Catholicism is the majority religion do not govern based on Catholic doctrine (which is moving left as I write this). Most Islamic countries, in one way or another, do rely on Islamic beliefs as a matter of law.

The key word here is “most.” For if we simply take away from this argument that Muslims are generally intolerant of LGBT people, or that Islam itself is to blame, we would be missing the point—and committing the same mistake that Maher did by overgeneralizing. Advances in LGBT rights in the West have only happened in the last 20 years—some might say just the last five—so it would be awfully hypocritical to fault the slow progress of LGBT rights in Muslim countries. But evidence suggests that in several countries, LGBT rights are in fact regressing, possibly in response to the West's increasing tolerance.

 

[CiG]

There is absolutely no reason why a similar shift in Middle-Eastern countries, provided they had the legal infrastructure to support it, wouldn't yield similar results for Muslims.

You mean besides the fact that Islam is a political religion which is total in nature? Muslims in the west already want Sharia courts.
39 minutes of content wherein he goes through each and every individual Islamic country's laws and cultural relationship to queerdom and you can't watch it because you think he's saying sane people should oppose Islam because the majority of Muslims think homosexuality is immoral? That's not even what he's said, unless I'm remembering it wrong.

But thanks for telling me about a nearly 70 year old case of chemical castration, that's very relevant to women being stoned to death and gay men being hung because they were raped.

Watch the whole video.

To your article:

> pretty decent piece

The lives of LGBT people in so many of these nations is characterized by silence, humiliation, shame and erasure.

Forgets to mention murder by state or mobs? Yeah, pretty decent stuff.

That was the crummiest, weakest article on LGBTQ+ positions in the Islamic world I have ever read. Even in the most moderately Islamic societies like Indonesia and Turkey, they are treated like filth, and what, this article is conflating hanging people from cranes or anally inserted electro-shock therapy with gay marriage? In Indonesia there are LGBTQ+ shelters set up because there are Islamist street gangs that go around attacking queer people.

What a load of tripe.

 

[Einherjar86]

You mean besides the fact that Islam is a political religion which is total in nature? Muslims in the west already want Sharia courts.
39 minutes of content wherein he goes through each and every individual Islamic country's laws and cultural relationship to queerdom and you can't watch it because you think he's saying sane people should oppose Islam because the majority of Muslims think homosexuality is immoral? That's not even what he's said, unless I'm remembering it wrong.

He says it in the opening few minutes. Explicitly.

All religions start off political (and you probably can say they're always politicized, at least). Christianity was a political response to violence against Jews at the hands of the Romans. When Islam was created Christianity was the firebrand of political organization across Europe. Eventually, Western history saw the displacement of religious law by secular law. This hasn't happened in certain Muslim countries, but it doesn't mean there's something fundamentally wrong with Islam.

I can't watch that video because it's 38 minutes long and I don't need more anti-Islam propaganda shoved down my throat. I know it's a problem. I'm trying to have a discussion about the inflammatory rhetoric that these kinds of statements use.

But thanks for telling me about a nearly 70 year old case of chemical castration, that's very relevant to women being stoned to death and gay men being hung because they were raped.

It is relevant. You think seventy years is that long ago? As soon as a generations passes, "well, that's old news, no need to bring it up anymore." Give me a break man. The plain truth is that the West only caught up to our general current state of affairs regarding homosexuality in the past fifty years or less. That is not a long time at all by cultural standards. Stop being so defensive.

Watch the whole video.

I really don't feel like it.

To your article:

> pretty decent piece


Forgets to mention murder by state or mobs? Yeah, pretty decent stuff.

That was the crummiest, weakest article on LGBTQ+ positions in the Islamic world I have ever read. Even in the most moderately Islamic societies like Indonesia and Turkey, they are treated like filth, and what, this article is conflating hanging people from cranes or anally inserted electro-shock therapy with gay marriage? In Indonesia there are LGBTQ+ shelters set up because there are Islamist street gangs that go around attacking queer people.

What a load of tripe.

You're so angry that you can't even acknowledge a piece that is actually agreeing with you.

Look, I agree that sharia law is a problem for tons of people in the non-Western world, I get that. But I won't concede that this means Islam is fundamentally worse than Christianity or Judaism as a religion of intolerance. The brutal physical statistics demonstrate increased intolerance and violence by Muslims toward homosexuals, but the factors that go into this exceed religion.

 

[CiG]

You're so angry that you can't even acknowledge a piece that is actually agreeing with you.

Would you mind not psychoanalyzing me based on text? I'm perfectly calm and rational. It's very condescending. After all you got so triggered by a few minutes of the video that you didn't go on, how academic and intellectual of you.

I understand that the article generally is agreeing with me, but it is very soft in some areas and downright cretinous in others.

He says it in the opening few minutes. Explicitly.

He is pointing out that all Muslim majority countries see homosexuality as immoral, but he didn't state this this is the reason sane people should oppose Islam. I'm re-watching it now. He's using the popular views of all these places as his opening gambit.

He then goes on to point out Saudi laws such as:


Then he talks about the Arab support of the Pulse shooter via twitter. So if you only made it as far as his section showing the percentages about public opinion on homosexuality, you are ill-equipped to talk about the video.

I can't watch that video because it's 38 minutes long and I don't need more anti-Islam propaganda shoved down my throat. I know it's a problem. I'm trying to have a discussion about the inflammatory rhetoric that these kinds of statements use.

You're speaking as if the guy is specifically some anti-Islam ideologue, when he's actually just a regular left-wing atheist who is opposed to religion. He's very Hitchensian. I don't expect you to know his content but you're being very ridiculous right now imo.

Why even bother responding to it if you haven't even watched more than 5 minutes? I'm not particularly interested in assumptions on your part.

It is relevant. You think seventy years is that long ago? As soon as a generations passes, "well, that's old news, no need to bring it up anymore." Give me a break man. The plain truth is that the West only caught up to our general current state of affairs regarding homosexuality in the past fifty years or less. That is not a long time at all by cultural standards. Stop being so defensive.

How am I being defensive? You're the one being a relativist, bringing up things that are old as a rebut to things that will happen probably 10 minutes from now to some poor bastard in the Islamic world. I'm not some great defender of religion, but leftists such as yourself do mental gymnastics all day on this subject and I think it's rather pathetic.

Even if 100% of Christians or Jews in the west suddenly thought homosexuality was immoral, no gay people would be hanging from bridges or buried neck-deep in the ground and stoned to death. The American government isn't going to suddenly start raiding homes for evidence of homosexuality and then imprison you.

Women aren't going to be forced by their Christian parents to move and marry an older man and then when they leave, be hunted down and murdered to save their family's honour. Do you know what the statistics are for honour killings in say, Germany?

I really don't feel like it.

So why bother even responding? Pretty pointless to start a discussion over something you didn't watch.

And yeah, maybe I'm a little angry. Maybe I think this is an important issue that nobody cares to address and when anybody does it's slagged off as anti-Islamic or racist or shooed away with references older than both people's combined age.

 

[Einherjar86]

So why bother even responding?

Fair point. Maybe I'll watch it all at some point... but probably not.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

0 to retard in record time.

 

[CiG]

Fair point. Maybe I'll watch it all at some point... but probably not.

I wish you would because it deserves a good discussion on here beyond Argisms.

 

[CF87]

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Camille Paglia: Women Aren’t Free Until Speech Is

 

[Dak]

As much as I agree with Paglia on certain proximal, current issues, I think she should place some blame on herself to blame for laying the foundation for the current hideous and destructive environment. The Left has not, generally, been about any sort of principal other than destruction. The long-longed-for utopia is a completely flat plane, devoid of any special feature that would mark difference, and especially anything transcendent. Whether that plane is high or low is functionally of minimal interest - and as it is easier to tear down than build up, we know what the historical result of left leveling is.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

The long-longed-for utopia is a completely flat plane, devoid any special feature that would mark difference, and especially anything transcendent. Whether that plane is high or low is functionally of minimal interest - and as it is easier to tear down than build up, we know what the historical result of left leveling is.

Polish writer Jerzy Zulawski perfectly summed up the concept of utopia:

“Nothing can be done for the current system. Society isn’t a product of rationality and that’s why it absolutely never will be. Every utopia – from the oldest Platonic beginnings, throughout the stretch of centuries until today, all utopias are houses of cards which do not care about the laws of gravity. From the moment one puts a hand to such an undertaking, a new evil becomes visible, appearing in place of the old one that was removed. The perfect coexistence of people in an ideal system – inherent human nature makes it impossible to achieve such a thing."

That was written in 1911.

http://translatingmarek.com/the-moo...cies-of-jerzy-zulawski-polands-hg-wells-1969/

 

[CiG]

I think she should place some blame on herself to blame for laying the foundation for the current hideous and destructive environment.

How specifically is this accurate?

 

[Dak]

How specifically is this accurate?

There's way too many data points and philosophical perspectives involved for me to bother trying to tie that together in a forum post. I won't insult you by saying it's "obvious", but I do believe it's true (which is the one thing obvious).

 

[CiG]

There's way too many data points and philosophical perspectives involved for me to bother trying to tie that together in a forum post. I won't insult you by saying it's "obvious", but I do believe it's true (which is the one thing obvious).

Copout.

Because she supported the sexual revolution, is one thing I assume? Just trying to get a sense of where you're coming from.