The Art of Nonsense, Pathology or Con-Artistry?

[goti71]

Molyneux really is a bit of a charlatan. I remember him on a show (Dave Rubin) claiming something like "White kids adopted by poor black families tend to display a high IQ, while black kids adopted into white middle-class families still score low on IQ tests".

Ok. One possibility is that there was actually a study made on hundreds of kids that produced these startling results —don't ask me how or why or where all this kid-switching happened on a national level (USA? Canada? Kazakhstan? French Riviera?).

And a second possibility is that he pulled it out of his arse.

A Charlatan and a sociopath. Sam Harris once mentioned he would notice a special gleam in Molyneux' eye whenever he got talking about all these racial issues.

[TitoFan]

The problem with Molyneux and many like him is that in this age of YouTube and social media, he has an easy platform from which to launch his bigotry and general ignorance, dressed up in some sort of pseudo-intelligence. Far too many people hang on the words of these opportunistic, opinionated people.... like sheep being led to the brain-washing machine. Not picking on Molyneux exclusively, or branding everything he has to say as wrong. Just raising the flag that too many people out there use these YouTube sermons as gospel, displacing their own thoughts on many matters. Before YouTube and social media, people were forced to come to their own conclusions, based on their own experiences, their own upbringing. People today, in general, like to spew multi-syllable words, in a comical effort to impress. They'll utter lots of words, but when that is condensed into meaning, it shrinks to 1% its original content. Which is why some of these extensive YouTube soliloquies are far too tedious and mind-numbing to listen to for more than a couple of minutes. Society is changing... though not necessarily for the better.

[Gandalf]

What bigotry, Tito? As long as you can support what you are saying then I struggle to understand the meanings of terms like racist or misogynist etc. If you disagree then cite why you disagree, but I hate it when people counter an argument with 'misogynist' as a) they have no counter argument and b) nust want to shut you down. This is where Beanz is such a conformist and stereotype. Does it all the time and in every thread. At least Molyneux can make a case and you can disagree all you like as long as you have the information to counter with. For instance there is a lot of information about the harmful effects of single parenting. Yet typically the only counter you get is 'You don't like women....misogynist'. It is asinine.

[TitoFan]

What bigotry, Tito? As long as you can support what you are saying then I struggle to understand the meanings of terms like racist or misogynist etc. If you disagree then cite why you disagree, but I hate it when people counter an argument with 'misogynist' as a) they have no counter argument and b) nust want to shut you down. This is where Beanz is such a conformist and stereotype. Does it all the time and in every thread. At least Molyneux can make a case and you can disagree all you like as long as you have the information to counter with. For instance there is a lot of information about the harmful effects of single parenting. Yet typically the only counter you get is 'You don't like women....misogynist'. It is asinine.

Miles, any time you start to generalize human flaws/ superiority based on race or ethnicity, you've already started off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter how prettily you dress it up with (cough) "statistics" or (hack) "science"..... it's always wrong. It's bigots' and sexists' way of rationalizing their inherent feelings of superiority and separation. It ignores individuality, and the fact that if you go back far enough, we all come from the same origins. Now I'll remind you that earlier I posted that I'm not "branding everything he has to say as wrong", so going off that, his views of single mothers are not entirely wrong. It's not rocket science to say that children generally do better with both a mother and a father. This is not news to me, or to billions of people around the world. There are exceptions, of course, and he probably should mention that once in awhile. 'Cause when he doesn't, he then comes across as what you're saying... a misogynist. It's all in how you choose to deliver your message.

[Gandalf]

What bigotry, Tito? As long as you can support what you are saying then I struggle to understand the meanings of terms like racist or misogynist etc. If you disagree then cite why you disagree, but I hate it when people counter an argument with 'misogynist' as a) they have no counter argument and b) nust want to shut you down. This is where Beanz is such a conformist and stereotype. Does it all the time and in every thread. At least Molyneux can make a case and you can disagree all you like as long as you have the information to counter with. For instance there is a lot of information about the harmful effects of single parenting. Yet typically the only counter you get is 'You don't like women....misogynist'. It is asinine.

Miles, any time you start to generalize human flaws/ superiority based on race or ethnicity, you've already started off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter how prettily you dress it up with (cough) "statistics" or (hack) "science"..... it's always wrong. It's bigots' and sexists' way of rationalizing their inherent feelings of superiority and separation. It ignores individuality, and the fact that if you go back far enough, we all come from the same origins. Now I'll remind you that earlier I posted that I'm not "branding everything he has to say as wrong", so going off that, his views of single mothers are not entirely wrong. It's not rocket science to say that children generally do better with both a mother and a father. This is not news to me, or to billions of people around the world. There are exceptions, of course, and he probably should mention that once in awhile. 'Cause when he doesn't, he then comes across as what you're saying... a misogynist. It's all in how you choose to deliver your message.

Look Tito, the local population here has an IQ higher than that of my own country. This is just a fact. There might be different arguments surrounding how and why, but it is a fact and I don't really consider it off on the wrong foot or anything like that. Look at the top 10 highest IQ countries and you see a pattern and it is what it is. You can watch the presentation on single mothers and then do your own research, it is generally accepted, though not absolute to any degree of course, that children raised with one parent will have life a lot harder than life raised in a two parent household. I really cannot be bothered with cries or racism or misogyny when it comes to such things. I am not offended by it in the slightest and I say that as someone from a country that is middling around 100 for IQ and has an epidemic of single motherhood. I don't understand the need to be upset by it. I find it much more constructive to just accept the reality and then ask 'What can we do to improve things?' and when you suggest people should have less casual sex and consider their partners very carefully you are still painted as being a very naughty boy. It is very twisted how Beanz goes about things in that regard.

It is good to see that you know how to have a conversation and we can agree on some things and disagree on others and that's all fair enough.

[TitoFan]

What bigotry, Tito? As long as you can support what you are saying then I struggle to understand the meanings of terms like racist or misogynist etc. If you disagree then cite why you disagree, but I hate it when people counter an argument with 'misogynist' as a) they have no counter argument and b) nust want to shut you down. This is where Beanz is such a conformist and stereotype. Does it all the time and in every thread. At least Molyneux can make a case and you can disagree all you like as long as you have the information to counter with. For instance there is a lot of information about the harmful effects of single parenting. Yet typically the only counter you get is 'You don't like women....misogynist'. It is asinine.

Miles, any time you start to generalize human flaws/ superiority based on race or ethnicity, you've already started off on the wrong foot. It doesn't matter how prettily you dress it up with (cough) "statistics" or (hack) "science"..... it's always wrong. It's bigots' and sexists' way of rationalizing their inherent feelings of superiority and separation. It ignores individuality, and the fact that if you go back far enough, we all come from the same origins. Now I'll remind you that earlier I posted that I'm not "branding everything he has to say as wrong", so going off that, his views of single mothers are not entirely wrong. It's not rocket science to say that children generally do better with both a mother and a father. This is not news to me, or to billions of people around the world. There are exceptions, of course, and he probably should mention that once in awhile. 'Cause when he doesn't, he then comes across as what you're saying... a misogynist. It's all in how you choose to deliver your message.

Look Tito, the local population here has an IQ higher than that of my own country. This is just a fact. There might be different arguments surrounding how and why, but it is a fact and I don't really consider it off on the wrong foot or anything like that. Look at the top 10 highest IQ countries and you see a pattern and it is what it is. You can watch the presentation on single mothers and then do your own research, it is generally accepted, though not absolute to any degree of course, that children raised with one parent will have life a lot harder than life raised in a two parent household. I really cannot be bothered with cries or racism or misogyny when it comes to such things. I am not offended by it in the slightest and I say that as someone from a country that is middling around 100 for IQ and has an epidemic of single motherhood. I don't understand the need to be upset by it. I find it much more constructive to just accept the reality and then ask 'What can we do to improve things?' and when you suggest people should have less casual sex and consider their partners very carefully you are still painted as being a very naughty boy. It is very twisted how Beanz goes about things in that regard.

It is good to see that you know how to have a conversation and we can agree on some things and disagree on others and that's all fair enough.

Absolutely. It's the only way to argue.

But IMO, single motherhood, and claims about IQ's by race or ethnicity are two completely different things. On single motherhood I agree. Still.... I'll bet we've all known shining exceptions to the rule, where a single mother has done her damnest and has raised wonderful, well-adjusted kids. It's not the norm, mind you... but there are exceptions. Still, I believe a single mother is starting off with two strikes, if you will (sorry for the baseball analogy). It's a problem that by all means should be addressed, as it's the root cause of a lot of ills in society. On IQ, it gets stickier. To me, IQ is simply genetics. The same reason why some kids are adept at sports and some aren't. Why some have a musical talent since birth. Why still others are born with a paint brush in their hands. Genetics. More than one U.S. celebrity has gotten in trouble trying to explain why blacks aren't good swimmers..... or why women aren't good golfers. They may have good intentions... but they invariably get in trouble for their generalizations. No country, race, or ethnic group has a monopoly on IQ. Life circumstances force people into different cubbyholes in life.... but it isn't because they're black, Asian, white, Hispanic, Jewish, etc.

[Gandalf]

They are very different issues for sure. One can be controlled, but the other, like you say, is likely mostly genetic. Like I say, though I have no qualms about differences between races and there will always be exceptions. You are going to get stupid Asian people and highly intelligent black people too of course. However, I guess my point is that I don't see how Molyneux is scientifically wrong on these issues. I hear a lot of words against Molyneux from Beanz and how much he knows about cults because apparently he was 'raised in a cult', but I don't actually see many arguments to tell anyone how or why Molyneux is wrong. I have highlighted one clear example of how I think Molyneux is wrong and that is in my belief that freemarkets are not always a solution and I could illustrate the UK property market of today as a prime example of how this hasn't worked, but all I see is 'He asks for donations, he has twisted words, he leads a cult' and this is rather bankrupt stuff.