Metathread for Ranting on Why your Thread got Locked in PPR

Post Reply New Topic

This was my locker's ( name not included ) incredibly subjective reason for locking the thread and incredibly naive prediction if he didn't lock it:

Subjective since :
- I was going to write an argument to the incredibly offended Cloudlayer
- How can an autistic or neurotypical even determine the sentience behind an indirect and subtle message when not face to face thus how can you determine whether it's jibed and snarky.
- If I was writing an argument , how can I not be patient? If I was not patient , I would of left.
- It wasn't justified

Naive since:
- he's assuming
- he's probably a leftist
- he's doesn't understand the situation and instead bases it on personality
- see above and conclude for yourself

Last edited by DuneyBlues on 15 Apr 2012, 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'll give this thread maybe an hour before it gets locked too

I would say Cornflake was on the ball, though I am disappointed you had to get it locked. I was looking forward to disassembling what you pass as an argument

Sad to say, you simply cannot trust my own opponents, in general. Many of them, such as Cloudlayer, have demonstrated — even admitted — that when it comes to race, they are activists, not scientists. They make no attempt to discover the truth, and they have no interest in the facts. What they do is appeal to the public’s emotions and its willful ignorance on the issues, shriek insults and spurious accusations of hatred, and attempt to silence dissenting viewpoints and shut down research that contradicts their political beliefs.

These are the sorts of people who said that believing in the IQ gap was “racist,” right up until the accumulated evidence for the gap was so ridiculously overwhelming that they were forced to concede that yes, there are obviously race differences in IQ. So now, according to them, the gap exists, but if you believe it’s not 100% environmental (i.e., caused by evil racist White people) or that IQ has something to do with intelligence, then you’re (still) a big ol’ “racist.” So it goes.

I don’t know who you guys really are, but I would assign no weight whatsoever to your opinions until I was certain you weren’t just more egalitarian activists who happen to work in science when they’re not out “defeating fascism.” Such people have given us every reason not to trust them.

Please, post more links to your "scientific" sources such as that wonderful Serbian nationalist page you shared with us, Dr. DuneyBlues, expert in genetics and biology

Lolz , yep awesome rebuttal.

Justify why before you pass a premise since it won't count as an argument - here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

I did justify my position, you are just too dim to see it. Agreeing with Cornflake is a rebuttal? Okay...

I don't care where my source came from in that thread , what matter's is it's content. People like you exhibit a bias , once you see something that society doesn't except , you immediately reject it.

Read this before you attempt to mock me with "Dr" :

Last edited by DuneyBlues on 15 Apr 2012, 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How subjective "you are just too dim to see it".. another Ad hominem?

Your choosing another definition of the word "Jibe". What he meant was is this : (jibe) shot: an aggressive remark directed at a person like a missile and intended to have a telling effect; "his parting shot was `drop dead'"; "she threw shafts of sarcasm"; "she takes a dig at me every chance she gets"

You should care. Sources matter quite a bit. The content was no good in any case, but the source sealed the deal. That you do not care about your sources says to me you have made up your mind on this and are willing to trumpet any web page that shares your views without doing any investigations into these sources or their counter arguments. You were saying about bias, Dr?



Where I describe how I have encountered people exactly like you who present the exact same style of argumentation you engage in? Present the exact same lack of arguments, instead throwing youtube videos, questionable sources, and insults around, making weak appeals to logic by half-assedly pointing out what you consider logical fallacies? Dr?

What I was trying to exhibit is just your appeal to authority. Oh I was a member here blah blah blah for this long , everything I say is true.

"You mean my personal experiences arguing either here in PPR since 2008, with dozens of users who say the exact same things as you have here (usually less politely)? Or simply reading and observing the practices and "methodology" of racial realists? Furthermore, just looking at who exactly the most outspoken of them are?"

Hey veteran , tell me where I commited a confirmation bias

"That you do not care about your sources says to me you have made up your mind on this and are willing to trumpet any web page that shares your views without doing any investigations into these sources or their counter arguments. You were saying about bias, Dr?".

Consider the following argument:

Everyone is different

Racial realists have the same argument

Thus some of their arguments are different.

"people exactly like you who present the exact same style of argumentation you engage in? Present the exact same lack of arguments"

Questionable sources? What about rejecting it's content?

"instead throwing youtube videos, questionable sources"
"The content was no good in any case, but the source sealed the deal."

You didn't even address my supposedly and likely subjective "weak" logic yet what makes you think that your argument is stronger?

"weak appeals to logic by half-assedly pointing out what you consider logical fallacies?"

Look at my own logic:



It apparently seems like you want to win so badly when even scientists who do rigorous research like Rushton get attacked by anti-racist instigators who provoke their opponent with racism claims even when their own culture only theory doesn't stand up. What Rushton did for example was come up with a creative and very elegant hypothesis to explain observed racial differences. It is called “r/K selection,” and it is based on general evolutionary principles. Such an explanation is desperately needed, because the “it’s all due to culture and evil White racism” hypothesis does not hold up. (If anything could be called “pseudoscientific and racist”…) Rushton also went out and found a lot of supporting evidence for his hypothesis (theory?), both on his own and in the literature.

I shared my personal experience engaging with people who support this argument, just to provide context for why I consider them questionable. Besides, my personal experience was really secondary to my main point, which was a criticism of the methodology and proponents



Anyone can argue over anything, what really matters is evidence and methodology. Racial realists tend to use the same kind of sources, reference the same individuals, make extremely vague, but all encompassing assertions...




I would be more concerned about accepting it's content. There has to be a standard of acceptability for information. Unreason does not get to sit on the same shelf as reason as much as proponents may want it to. Sloboda velesova does not bear much credibility



I was actually referring to your habit of responding to people by linking to Wikipedia articles on various logical fallacies, which is pretty cute but otherwise not that impressive



Rushton's work has not been accepted by the vast, overwhelming majority of the scientific community. In addition, it has drawn sharpest criticism from scientists, not media. Furthermore, r/K Selection Theory has not been in much use for almost thirty years, nor did Rushton come up with it...

It is amusing to me that for the mostpart, the term "racist" is being thrown around by you and other racial realists. I have focused on methodological and scientific criticisms.

Sorry. I just thought I was clear on why I have this position on racial realism. I'm sure you're a good guy irl and all that



Look, talk to the mods about that

Read the site rules DuneyBlues, it is not allowed to create threads discussing locked threads.

For creating yet another thread (after the above warning) discussing a locked topic, DuneyBlues has been suspended from WP for one week.

For creating a sock-puppet account to circumvent the one week suspension, DuneyBlues has now been permanently banned from WP.