Brave Position Club?
At my post yesterday on race, several comments accused me of cowardice for not taking a position there on race-IQ correlations, even though that is not directly relevant to the post, and even though I have commented on that topic before. While I mostly don’t avoid taking positions on controversial topics if I think I have something interesting to say about them, I also don’t go out of my way to take controversial positions just to take them. Apparently some folks, however, take pride in going out of their way to take controversial positions even when they have nothing interesting to say on such topics.
I suppose I can appreciate that some folks want to signal they don’t fear social retribution, though I suspect many interpret them as signaling that they have no political or managerial ambitions. But it occurs to me that folks could be more systematic about this signal; imagine a Brave Position Club.
The Brave Position Club would have an official long list of, perhaps 100, brave topics, and club members would simply be defined as folks who had publicly declared a clear current position (perhaps chosen from a menu) on all those brave topics. The topics should be chosen to be the most socially awkward topics, ones for which people typically fear the most social costs for taking certain positions. The topics should also be chosen neutrally, so as to “gore everyone’s oxen” equally, rather than to preferentially expose the hypocrisies of certain disfavored groups.
The topic list should be long enough so that people who chose positions by “thinking for themselves” would likely choose socially-awkward retribution-worthy positions on at least a few of the topics. A club member who declared the safe opinion on all the brave topics would be clearly identified as a “kiss-ass brown-noser” who didn’t think for themselves.
I’d be tempted to join such a club, at least if some careful analysis had gone into picking the topics neutrally, and if I expected enough other folks to join for it to become focal. Would you join? Who should join and why?
"So why do you accept the conclusion if the argument is incomplete?"
Your argument is absolutist in tone though, by your own logic we shouldn't accept evolution per se due to the fact the chain of transitional fossils has not been 'completed' yet.
Nice to you see smugly attacking Catholics and Homeopathy practitioners on your blog though. Isn't it funny how egalitarians always pick the easiest targets to beat over the head? Not a single one would ever challenge the real dominant paradigms that rule our age, the real taboos of racial egalitarianism and how any inequality of outcome is invariably down to some kind of 'phantom discrimination' and can be corrected with social engineering.
Far from it, you support these paradigms and gleefully engage in the kind of character assassinations that followed Watson's comments years ago, or Lahn's research into Microcephalin and so on.
Fuck Zionism by the way. If you want to talk about 'religious evil' just read the damned Talmud, I've never seen so much hateful supremacist filth in all my life, the Babylonian Talmud is like Mein Kampf on steroids.
How about this link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The concordance rate for full siblings is in the 3-6% range.
http://resources.metapress....
There is cross-talk between twin fetuses in utero. In cattle, there is what is known as a “free martin”, the female twin of a male calf. A free martin is usually always sterile.
The increased autism in male-male DZT is probably due to higher levels of testosterone.