Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[Michael]

I can see where that might be useful, though - obviously, if success in your educational system is significantly skewed or suppressed according to some gene that codes for eye color, or susceptibility to mold allergies, there might be something wrong with your educational system - you should check out what's going on.

Not much to do with IQ, though.

Both.

Of course, regardless of IQ (which is mostly genetic), the first start to fixing the educational system in the USA is ending regulations that prevent people from engaging in trade (GASP, free-people, who'd think it possible?). That way schools will not educate to tests, but for knowledge. Next is to out-compete traditional Government Schools with Chartered alternative schools. Finally, end public funding altogether. A free-market in education would obviously be the best solution. I imagine much of the 'learning' could be done at home.

A complete overhaul of Public University seems in order. Private loans together with the privatization of Universities should be prioritized. The public is wasting a lot of money on courses with little value. Those should be paid out of pocket.

 

[iceaura]

Oh, and 'clearly' significantly is incorrect wording. It's significant or not significant.

It's clear that it's significant. Clearly significant. Go ahead, read the sentence again with the correct meaning at hand - "repetition is the last law of learning" (John Wooden).

Here: "Every recorded, visible, longstanding, and clearly significant racism-influenced factor potentially affecting black people's IQ scores is negative, afaik. "

Correcting your illiteracies and misreadings is a major aspect of discussing anything with you. Do you realize that? Are you ever grateful?

Will you ever quit trying to talk about Asians in this thread?

No.

You have no interest in talking about absurd denial and how it works. And that makes sense - it can't be a comfortable topic for you. But you do insist on talking - and there's where you run into problems. Because you can't both deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US, and make sense. Not at the same time. And babbling about IQ tests and Asians just highlights your situation.

 

[Michael]

The genetic profile of the likely good student, you mean. I can tell you right now what a good segment of it involves - two X chromosomes. That's been obvious for a long time.

In our current Government School educational system where compliance and assessment are key to success. Sure. That may not be the case in a different system.

Anyway, IQ is crude measure. It's useful in explaining socioeconomic outcomes rationally. And does. Low IQ people are locked out of markets due to regulatory-capture and licensing for rent-seeker status. All of which come back to Government School assessment regimes.

Progressive Socialism has been harming Black American, since its inception. But, like any Authoritarian-based / violence-based ideology, it has morphed back on itself and is now attacking 'White Males', soon 'White Females' and in time 'Asians'. Like any religion, it's unsound foundation means it will never work. How it ultimately destroys society, really depends on the society. The path Sweden takes will be different from that of Venezuela.

 

[Michael]

It's clear that it's significant. Clearly significant.

(A) Again, that's not worded correctly. The correct wording is it is 'significant' or not significant. To qualify the significance you would determine the effect size (eta squared). (B) Do you now have data showing significance? That's great, post a link to the citation.

LOL

 

[Michael]

Will you ever quit trying to talk about Asians in this thread?

Sorry, but you are making a categorical argument, one of your categories is 'black people'. I have inferred the there's a 'white people' category given you have another category called 'white racism'. Asians and Jews are the black swans demonstrating the flaw in your reasoning.

Thus, you will be left with only one resource, to provide good controlled data. Which you seem to not have. I have posted data though. Data that suggests the IQ of people, all people, is most genetic.

 

[iceaura]

IMO the pinnacle of human achievement was European. It always has been. Science, philosophy, literature, painting, architecture, civil liberty. From Greece through Roma to modern Europe. That time is gone now.

That's a bizarre fantasy. The pinnacle of civil liberty in the world was probably North America in the 1600s; of philosophy probably India, then China, then maybe Japan over the centuries; of science for 500 years (from the 11th through the 16th Century) the Islamic Middle East; and so forth.

A complete overhaul of Public University seems in order.

The university system that draws students from the entire planet, by the tens of thousands, the children of the intellectual elites of every country;
the finest university system ever developed on the planet, by any measure available;
you are going to subject to "complete overhaul"?

Be careful. Save all the parts. You might want to make sure you can put it back together, someday.

Sorry, but you are making a categorical argument, one of your categories is 'black people'.

I'm not making a "categorical argument". I'm labeling you a denier of Jim Crow, to go with your denial of AGW and the Holocaust, and not arguing about it. Just labeling.

There's only one "category" in it: "absurd denials". Asian people are not involved, unless somebody introduces an absurd denial of something - like Mao's Terror - that involves Asian people.

I have posted data though. Data that suggests the IQ of people, all people, is most genetic.

You have no idea what your data "suggests". Are you ever going to take that class?

 

[Michael]

That's a bizarre fantasy. The pinnacle of civil liberty in the world was probably North America in the 1600s; of philosophy probably India, then China, then maybe Japan over the centuries; of science for 500 years (from the 11th through the 16th Century) the Islamic Middle East; and so forth.

LOL

No.

North America circa 15th century was an expression of European culture/s. Mainly English. As for Science, while middle eastern countries played a major role in preserving, generally Greek inventions and ideas, their place in history consist primarily of handing down this information to Europeans. Not to mention, the greatest Islamic Science happened in Europe, Spain to be precise. By Europeans who happened to be Spanish Muslims.

As for Eastern Philosophy, we're obviously using the word differently. Some Eastern induction is interesting. Chinese medicine is in now way comparable to Western Medicine.

The achievements Asians (or others) made pale, in comparison to Western Philosophy and Science. There is no comparison. No real one. It'd be like comparing a rickshaw to the space shuttle. In all endeavours, but particularly math and science, Europeans outshone any other people - ever.
Until now.
Now the role of the West is one of a cautionary tale of what happens when you ignore reason and evidence. You do so, at your own peril.

Just think, we might get a law passed whereby everyone has to vote. With a handy little smart phone app, the American electorate could quickly elect Justin Beaver as POTUS. I'm fairly certain they will - or someone similar. Maybe Zuckerberg? LOL

The university system that draws students from the entire planet, by the tens of thousands, the children of the intellectual elites of every country;

At one time it was, and maybe still is, the greatest educational system. Rapily not becoming so.

you are going to subject to "complete overhaul"?

University in the USA is a complete mess now. Asians are probably getting the most out of it, they go, attend STEM classes, leave, come back, sit tests, ace tests, rinse-repeat.

Then become rent-seekers.

THAT is not "University". It's a poorly designed information transfer mechanism. What made University great (and I went to a top 10) was the Academia. IMO for the most part, this no longer exists. It does a little, a pale shadow of itself. Sadly, there may be no way of fixing it.

Sometimes, when something is gone - it is gone. And I've worked in a number of countries, NONE of which have even come close to replicating the US University system. They can't because it's mostly cultural. Something we're working feverishly to eradicate. You know, like what you've been engaged in here. You're whole "White Patriarch" / "White Racism" / racist denigration of Americans - whom are, for the most part, hard working, honoest non-racists. Not that this matters to you.

Anyway, once gone, it's gone. That'll be that. I say it's mostly gone. It's easier for me to see, because I come and go in intervals where I notice the changes most people living in the USA don't see.

Be careful. Save all the parts. You might want to make sure you can put it back together, someday.

Unless you're going to turn back the clock, that time has come and gone. I was lucky to have had the fortune to experience it, as it was.

Oh well, all things change. With a free-market, we could (eventually) create something much better. Just probably not in the USA.

 

[Michael]

Ann Coulter canceled her speech, hey a 'Win' for the Fascist Left.

"There will be no speech," she wrote in an email to Reuters on Wednesday, saying two conservative groups sponsoring her speech were no longer supporting her. "I looked over my shoulder and my allies had joined the other team," she wrote. The group accused of acquiescing to ANTIFA demands are the YAF (Young America's Foundation), who said in a statement issued today that they were afraid of violence purported by the left.

“As of 4:00 p.m. today, Young America’s Foundation will not be moving forward with an event at Berkeley on April 27 due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators,” they continued. “Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere.”

“Ms. Coulter may still choose to speak in some form on campus, but Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students,” they concluded. “For information on Ms. Coulter’s plans, please contact her directly.”

I’m so sorry Berkeley canceled my speech. I’m so sorry YAF acquiesced in the cancellation. And I'm so sorry for free speech crushed by thugs.

Welcome to University in America. You're freer to speak in China (ironically enough), Korea or Japan. Oh well, the great cycle turns. The sun sets in the West, rising in the East. Thankfully, we (humanity) have a high-IQ East. I'm still looking forward to the great advances made in technology And, to be fair, Eastern countries are much more culturally interesting, particularly the depth of tradition, compared with the Pop-sludge of the West,

 

[pjdude1219]

A complete overhaul of Public University seems in order. Private loans together with the privatization of Universities should be prioritized. The public is wasting a lot of money on courses with little value. Those should be paid out of pocket.

so you want to take the public university system the part of our education system that works best and replace with private for profit universities the works the worst. no a complete overhaul of public university does not seem in order a complete overhaul of your head however does.

 

[iceaura]

North America circa 15th century was an expression of European culture/s. Mainly English.

There's a beauty.
Did I mention what a chore it is trying to deal with your refusal to learn the meanings of words and stuff like that?

As for Science, while middle eastern countries played a major role in preserving, generally Greek inventions and ideas, their place in history consist primarily of handing down this information to Europeans.

They were the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and research on this planet for 500 years - 11th through 16th centuries.

As for Eastern Philosophy, we're obviously using the word differently.

No, we're not.

Chinese medicine is in now way comparable to Western Medicine.

The first Westerners to encounter Chinese medicine found things in a somewhat different relative state. Among the things Western medicine learned, for example, was the health benefits of boiling water, taking baths, and cleansing after defecation.

Western "medicine", your pinnacle of human knowledge and understanding through the ages, learned to wipe its ass and wash its hands from the Chinese and Japanese.

The achievements Asians (or others) made pale, in comparison to Western Philosophy and Science.

They weren't starting from on top of their own achievements. Isaac Newton was standing on the shoulders of giants - and he knew it.

Europe was the fortunate son in many respects, none more than being at the intersection of so many threads of human achievement when the climate transitioned - imagine being in the center when the pinnacle of plant breeding (the neotropical Americas) met the pinnacle of animal breeding (Asia Minor).

 

[iceaura]

Welcome to University in America. You're freer to speak in China (ironically enough), Korea or Japan

No, you aren't, actually.

And why are confusing Berkeley with "University in America"? The intellectually near-worthless Coulter has spoken at quite a few Universities in America, from the U of Wyoming to Harvard, small and large, public and private, from this list:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-united-states
and this one:
10 Largest Universities in USA (http://www.happyschools.com/10-largest-universities-in-usa/)

1. Arizona State University 58,404
2. University of Central Florida 58,587
3. Ohio State University56,867
4. University of Minnesota 52,557
5. University of Texas at Austin 51,112
6. Texas A&M University 50,051
7. University of Florida 49,589
8. Florida International University 47,966
9. Michigan State University 47,800
10. Pennsylvania State University 44,485

alike. (Guess which one Berkeley is on)

 

[Michael]

No, you aren't, actually.

That depends on and the trend appears to be more censorship in the USA (you know, the whole 'fake news' - unless it's Iraqi WMD) and more openness in the East. Of course, the East is different. Different people. Different cultural norms. Different ideas about what should and should not be public discourse. In the case of China, sure, criticism of the ruling Socialists, comes at your own risk.

Again, I've lived in numerous countries, it's a rare oddity to have a large degree of civil liberty. Most of the "Socialistic" paradises you admire, come at a massive intellectual cost, in honesty, in personal involvement, in quality, and in culture. Ours (the USA) was a unique fluke. It happened once, in history. Not likely to happen again, in history. A large extremely fertile continent, ripe for conquest by a certain type of person - one that valued individuality. Exemplified in the US Constitution. This isn't the norm. Most people would prefer to be ruled over. Which is may be why Socialism/State Authoritarianism appeals to them.

Particularly in the East. So, no, don't expect new developments in civil liberty to arise through discourse in the East. I think this will instead happen technologically. Technological independence will lead to individual liberty in the East. Kind of as an accidental side effect.

As for the West, I wouldn't doubt if we don't have a far Right OR Left Dictator in the next few decades. Particularly as those pesty civil liberty loving White People die off and are replaced by people with different cultural norms.
LOL

Baked
In
The
Historical
Cake

Welcome to a hundred years of Progressive Socialism.

 

[iceaura]

That depends on and the trend appears to be more censorship in the USA (you know, the whole 'fake news' - unless it's Iraqi WMD) and more openness in the East. Of course, the East is different. Different people. Different cultural norms. Different ideas about what should and should not be public discourse. In the case of China, sure, criticism of the ruling Socialists, comes at your own risk

So you aren't, actually, freer to speak in China, Japan, or Korea. Right now.

Just as none of that bright future of economic freedom actually exists in China, right now.

Just as these fantasies of yours about other places, other times, other people, aren't any kind of reality that actually works to hide the absurdity of denying Jim Crow, or AGW, or the Holocaust.

Because it's pretty obvious that if a single university somewhere not lending their limited and budgeted dime to intellectually worthless speakers who make their money by starting expensive fights can give you conniptions and cause you to forecast the doom of liberalism in America, the country is not in terminal collapse.

Particularly as those pesty civil liberty loving White People die off and are replaced by people with different cultural norms

Who somehow were raised for generations in the same culture as the civil liberty loving White People, without joining them in loving their norms. Any idea how that happened?

 

[Schmelzer]

Michael claims the US black/white racial gap in average population IQ score is entirely or almost entirely "genetic" in some unspecified way, as shown by its familial heritability.
He claims that this disposes of white racism and its effects as an explanation for any significant black/white racial features of the US political and economic and sociological landscape - he labels these "outcomes".

Then quote him. What I have seen is his main repeated objection that you make only the diffuse claim of some unspecified "effects" of white racism. Never seen him denying that white racism has some (unspecified) consequences, can possibly explain some (unspecified) part of some (unspecified) effects or so. As long as you do not make scientific, testable hypotheses, there is nothing to talk about or to deny.

I post the fact that the anti-miscegenation laws of the Jim Crow era were enforced throughout the Confederacy until 1967. 1967 was 50 years ago - less than two reproductive generations. Until 1967, throughout the Confederacy (home to many black people in the US), any "genetic" racial gap in IQ scores was being maintained at gunpoint, via the enforcement of explicitly racist law by overtly racist authority.
You then repost a demand for scientific evidence of my "hypothesis" of white racism, and explicitly set it up as in conflict with an alternative "inherited IQ" explanation of "outcomes".
And I am supposed to take you guys seriously?

See, I can post the report of the weather over the last years, from, say, the Sahara. Sometimes it is very hot there. The IQ of those living there was expressed to heavy, powerful radiation by the Sun. And, in case that you demand for scientific evidence of my "hypothesis" that heavy radiation by the Sun and high temperature influences the IQ, what would be the adequate reaction from my side? (With maintaining IQs at gunpoint you made my day, btw.)

Not only that, I have labeled as absurd denial the demand for any such bullshit "general causal theory".

Thanks for clarifying that you are not at all interested in any scientific approach to the question of effects of white racism. Once you refuse to participate in a scientific discussion, your talk about effects of white racism is simply ideological babble. Without any need to be commented in any way. There is no point of "denial" of ideological babble.

Which brings us to one of my actual points of interest: absurd denials cluster in deniers. And you illustrate this - in your world, AGW and the Holocaust for sure, hints of 9/11 even, join white racism in America as matters in which basic physical and historical facts are in doubt, are "hypotheses", require "scientific evidence".

Indeed, here we have agreement at least about the existence of two clusters. One cluster contains those who follow the majority/mainstream/party line, however you name it. Simply the sheeple following the herd. They will never become "deniers". Instead, they will cry "deniers" if other people disagree with something.

The other cluster contains those who think themselves. They are open to questioning everything. Ask for scientific evidence for everything. Accept scientific methodology, which, following Popper, tells that all scientific theories are only hypotheses, and may appear false, falsifies by some observation. And once somebody claims that some claim of the mainstream/party line is false, they are in principle open to hear him. That does in no way mean that they will follow him. It depends who, in their opinion, has the better arguments. But, once they are ready to question everything, it is quite probable that they will reject the mainstream opinion not only in one question, but in several different questions. So, you have a cluster of "deniers" as well as several "denials" for every "denier".

Given that you classify as "denial" already the demand for "scientific evidence", as well as a rejection to support the mainstream opinion, and as evidence for "denial" already knowledge of literature of non-mainstream sources, you can be even more certain - those in this cluster will "deny" everything.

 

[iceaura]

What I have seen is his main repeated objection that you make only the diffuse claim of some unspecified "effects" of white racism.

And so you have also had pass before your eyes, apparently unseen, the many posts from me that show this "objection" to be unfounded, and irrelevant, and quite silly.
Your inability to see things is very familiar to me. I no longer sympathize with your difficulties. You don't seem to be trying very hard to improve.

Thanks for clarifying that you are not at all interested in any scientific approach to the question of effects of white racism

That is false. And trolling, of course, but hey - it's you, so there's trolling.
I am quite interested in such a thing, and if a thread were started might well participate. Nothing like that has been proposed by the deniers here, of course - instead, the effects of white racism on black people have been flatly denied, and any discussion of them deflected into comments about yellow people, silly misconceptions about IQ test scores and genetics, and similar garbage.

Indeed, here we have agreement at least about the existence of two clusters. One cluster contains those who follow the majority/mainstream/party line, however you name it.

That is false.
It has also been explained to you, several times, exactly why it is false.
You haven't figured it out, apparently. It is not that complex. Here:
The situation of interest, the absurd denial, is one in which the concept of a "party line" is not relevant, but meaningless. All parties that register physical fact, that have an actual "line" at all, have the same "line" in that respect, in these situations. So adherence to any one particular "line" - a "majority" or "mainstream" or whatever - is not involved. Instead, a wide and mutually conflicting variety of lines containing the basic physical situation are usually possible, including many not at all endorsed by the powers that be.
I illustrated this for you, using your own example of 9/11. Clearly many non-absurd denials of all published accounts exist. But absurd denials also exist - such as the denial that hijacked airplanes were flown into the named buildings on that day. It's not that no one may question that fact. It's that if they persist in not recognizing the answer to such a question, they are engaging in absurd denial.
So all kinds of non-mainstream "lines" exist regarding 9/11, which are not absurd and not the thread topic.
Likewise in the case of AGW, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, and so forth. There are many valid lines of approach to them. Denial of the reality of their existence is not included in any of those lines. That would be absurd.

And that should be the last time we see that now four times debunked "explanation" for your absurd denials, of AGW, of the Holocaust, of Jim Crow, etc.

The other cluster contains those who think themselves. They are open to questioning everything

This is not a separate cluster. The opportunity to question anything and everything is assumed - not at issue - for everyone. What is at issue is the refusal to recognize answers when they appear - to pretend that answered questions are still valid and open and unanswered. Such denials are not examples of thinking for themselves, but refusing to think at all.

And that's what you and Michael and the rest of the deniers are posting - refusals to think, denials of common reality.

 

[Schmelzer]

And so you have also had pass before your eyes, apparently unseen, the many posts from me that show this "objection" to be unfounded, and irrelevant, and quite silly.

Don't worry, I have seen a lot of posts from you that tried to show something, which were unfounded, and irrelevant, and quite silly. SCNR.

I am quite interested in such a thing, and if a thread were started might well participate.

So, tell us what is your scientific hypothesis about the effects of white racism. What are the effects? An increase of the use of the phrase "white racism" in postings? What else? What is your expected effect size?

Nothing like that has been proposed by the deniers here, of course - instead, the effects of white racism on black people have been flatly denied, and any discussion of them deflected into comments about yellow people, silly misconceptions about IQ test scores and genetics, and similar garbage.

That white racism has effects is not denied. I have even named one myself - an increase of the use of the phrase "white racism" in forum postings. Michael, do you deny this effect?

The situation of interest, the absurd denial, is one in which the concept of a "party line" is not relevant, but meaningless. All parties that register physical fact, that have an actual "line" at all, have the same "line" in that respect, in these situations. So adherence to any one particular "line" - a "majority" or "mainstream" or whatever - is not involved.

There are, of course, simple trivialities, where doubt makes no sense, so that "denial" becomes absurd. Say, that 2+2=4. Let's not that such issues are not discussed here at all. You have already used here "absurd denial" simply as cheap polemics, so that this is simply a derogatory phrase, nothing else. But, even if you now introduce them into the discussion - in this case, the mainstream opinion is the same as the majority opinion and the party line - they all agree that 2+2=4. Trump, Clinton, Zündel, Stalin, Hitler - they all agree that 2+2=4. So, these notions have a well-defined meaning even in this case.

Instead, a wide and mutually conflicting variety of lines containing the basic physical situation are usually possible, including many not at all endorsed by the powers that be.

Yes. A party line does not specify everything. What easily distinguishes a party line from questions where the sheeple are allowed to follow arbitrary opinions is the element of moral condemnation. One who thinks 2+2=5 is simply stupid, or a small child yet unable to count correctly, but not an amoral, evil denier.

I illustrated this for you, using your own example of 9/11. Clearly many non-absurd denials of all published accounts exist. But absurd denials also exist - such as the denial that hijacked airplanes were flown into the named buildings on that day. It's not that no one may question that fact. It's that if they persist in not recognizing the answer to such a question, they are engaging in absurd denial.

This is nothing but some arbitrary line. Whatever, once you use the "denier" even for non-absurd rejections of the government version, it remains unclear what is the point of making such a distinction. Stupid deniers or smart deniers - they are all deniers, that means, all evil, all morally wrong. But, ok, let's fix this progress in your position:

So all kinds of non-mainstream "lines" exist regarding 9/11, which are not absurd and not the thread topic.
Likewise in the case of AGW, the Holocaust, Jim Crow, and so forth. There are many valid lines of approach to them.

Fine. But, just to clarify, by having no position about the increase of temperature by global warming and defending nothing about its origin, simply by not promoting the mainstream AGW, or by simply not promoting the mainstream version of history of the Holocaust (instead of promoting some alternative version) I'm already a denier, even if not (I hope) an absurd one? And having read something from proponents of alternative position is already evidence that I'm a denier?

The opportunity to question anything and everything is assumed - not at issue - for everyone.

Really? Fine. But, when, why you name those who question the mainstream position, or simply do not endorse it, deniers? Which is, at least in its German translation "Leugner", a moral condemnation? Oh, but I see, it is, in fact, not allowed to question the mainstream, other than rhetorically "questioning" something in a mainstream FAQ:

What is at issue is the refusal to recognize answers when they appear - to pretend that answered questions are still valid and open and unanswered. Such denials are not examples of thinking for themselves, but refusing to think at all.

Of course, those who follow the mainstream position always claim that the mainstream position answers all questions in a valid way. The problem that the mainstream answer is not considered as satisfactory (which is what I thought is the meaning of "questioning") is classified as "refusing to think", and, therefore, I would guess not only simple evil denial, but even absurd denial.

 

[iceaura]

So, tell us what is your scientific hypothesis about the effects of white racism. What are the effects? An increase of the use of the phrase "white racism" in postings? What else? What is your expected effect size?

A list of a half dozen of the more obvious and likely and serious mechanisms of effect merely on IQ levels - just that, because it highlights the nonsense of the IQ malarky - was posted above as an illustration of the bizarre futility of the attempts to justify Jim Crow denial. Otherwise - start the appropriate thread.
As before: Not in this thread. You don't get to cover your ass here, with such deflections. This thread is about absurd denials; like Holocaust denial, or Jim Crow denial.

This is nothing but some arbitrary line. Whatever, once you use the "denier" even for non-absurd rejections of the government version, it remains unclear what is the point of making such a distinction. Stupid deniers or smart deniers - they are all deniers, that means, all evil, all morally wrong.

But I don't. So that's all beside the point.
Meanwhile: We all know it's possible to be stupid about things without being absurdly in denial.

Fine. But, just to clarify, by having no position about the increase of temperature by global warming and defending nothing about its origin, simply by not promoting the mainstream AGW, or by simply not promoting the mainstream version of history of the Holocaust (instead of promoting some alternative version) I'm already a denier, even if not (I hope) an absurd one?

You are an absurd denier of AGW, at considerable length and insistence. And not because of what you do or don't promote. Because of what you deny.
You don't have "no position". You deny the common physical reality, absurdly. You treat the reports of the research as if they were propaganda. You treat the physical facts as if they were in question. And the "mainstream" position, (which you do not in fact even comprehend, regarding AGW), is not involved - you deny all the reality acknowledging positions, mainstream and otherwise, in all their variety, when you deny the common reality.

Really? Fine. But, when, why you name those who question the mainstream position, or simply do not endorse it, deniers?

I don't. I specifically explained that, four times now, above. That's a central, crucial point.

No particular position is involved. You are denying the common reality of all of them. That's what makes the denial absurd.

Yes. A party line does not specify everything. What easily distinguishes a party line from questions where the sheeple are allowed to follow arbitrary opinions is the element of moral condemnation.

Poor baby is feeling picked on, morally condemned, treated the way poor baby treats sheeple? Can't help you there. Maybe if you quit confusing yourself by using "sheeple" and suchlike vocabulary, you'd be able to think better.

Or maybe not. Maybe you are thinking just fine, and your agenda here is the problem. I mean, this the the fourth time around this little carousel of the willfully obtuse - how many times before not having a clue isn't innocent?

 

[Schmelzer]

But I don't.

Which makes you a denier.

You are an absurd denier of AGW, at considerable length and insistence. And not because of what you do or don't promote. Because of what you deny.
You don't have "no position". You deny the common physical reality, absurdly. You treat the reports of the research as if they were propaganda. You treat the physical facts as if they were in question. And the "mainstream" position, (which you do not in fact even comprehend, regarding AGW), is not involved - you deny all the reality acknowledging positions, mainstream and otherwise, in all their variety, when you deny the common reality.

Moreover, you are a liar. Quote please, for every of these accusations, a corresponding post, with link. Or take your accusations back.

why you name those who question the mainstream position, or simply do not endorse it, deniers?

I don't.

Which makes you a denier. In the normal use of the word. Somebody who denies something which is clearly true, can easily be seen. Here, fore example:

The matter is not how it is "quite often phrased", but how I have phrased it, namely "I have no opinion at all about the question if there is a global warming or not, nor about the size of the effect, nor about its origins", and which you have characterized as "which is denial of AGW".

Yep. ... That's how you phrase your denial, as an absurd "neutral position".

No particular position is involved. You are denying the common reality of all of them. That's what makes the denial absurd.

One cannot deny reality. One can only deny particular claims about reality.

Poor baby is feeling picked on, morally condemned, treated the way poor baby treats sheeple?

I couldn't care less. I'm discussing your totalitarian approach, your Orwell newspeak. It is a danger to your society, not to me, because I do not live in the US. If you would start only the usual namecalling, calling those who disagree with you, say, stupid, idiots or so, this would be harmless, like my calling the mainstream followers "sheeple", that would not have any totalitarian aspect. Denial is something different, people are already imprisoned for denial,

Maybe you are thinking just fine, and your agenda here is the problem. I mean, this the the fourth time around this little carousel of the willfully obtuse - how many times before not having a clue isn't innocent?

We have a nice collection here of totalitarian thinking.

Today we can add the "agenda". Paddoboy's beloved accusation: Everybody not following the scientific mainstream was criticized as "having an agenda". I thought this is a particular tick of paddoboy, but, I see, no. This seems to be also a word of the modern Orwellian newspeak. Time to analyze its purpose?

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/24212/meaning-of-have-an-agenda suggests that "having an agenda" is something negative. While "agenda" itself has also a neutral meaning (the plan what to discuss at a meeting), the meaning here is clearly having some hidden, secret, evil aim. Not sure if one who has an agenda is an agent (this may be a false friend), and an agent has also a harmless meaning (somebody representing openly somebody else), but there is also the evil meaning, a spy or saboteur acting in favor of some evil foreign power, one of the beloved accusations in Stalin time.

What would be the point of "having an agenda" in a usual, civilized discussion? It would be a cheap ad hominem, which would make arguments in favor of the "agenda" a little bit suspect. This would presuppose that the "agenda" is known or at least easy to identify. The totalitarian use is different - its aim is personal attack, which, later, can end in imprisonment too.

The next example of totalitarian thinking follows immediately: The argument which tries to show that I'm such an evil agent with an agenda. It is simply the point that iceaura's arguments were not powerful enough to change my mind. Think about it, iceaura has repeated the same argument even four times!!!111 And I have not accepted it anyway. Probably simply because I think the argument is weak - so that repetition of the same weak argument has no additional argumentative power anyway. Not in totalitarian thinking. You are allowed (in mild forms of totalitarian thinking) not to know that something is part of the (nonexisting) party line. You may, after the first explanation of the party line, confuse this with an argument about some politically irrelevant question, where one is allowed to think oneself. But at least after the third repetition, one should have understood: This is the party line argument, this is what one has to accept without further questioning. So, if one refuses to accept it after the forth repetition or so, one is an evil agent with an agenda.

 

[iceaura]

Moreover, you are a liar. Quote please, for every of these accusations, a corresponding post, with link. Or take your accusations back.

No, I'm not. You describe it yourself, in your own way - that reality is part of what you call the "mainstream position", something you are happy to "not endorse".

If you would start only the usual namecalling, calling those who disagree with you, say, stupid, idiots or so, this would be harmless, like my calling the mainstream followers "sheeple", that would not have any totalitarian aspect. Denial is something different, people are already imprisoned for denial,

Nonsense. It's the thread topic, and nobody is at the slightest risk of anything like imprisonment over it.
And I think you are underestimating the crippling effects of this vocabulary you cribbed off American rightwing media. You're handicapping yourself. That's why it was marketed to its targets.

Probably simply because I think the argument is weak - so that repetition of the same weak argument has no additional argumentative power anyway.

You have yet to show any sign of knowing what the "argument" is, and all your responses so far have been from stances of incomprehension - not understanding the issue. Now if I presume this is deliberate concealment on your part, a pretense of incomprehension to abet deflection or trolling of some kind, we're back to the "agenda" comment you regarded as (bizarrely) "totalitarian thinking". But if I look for some other obvious approach to explaining why you are still posting clueless babble about "Party lines" after four repetitions of a fairly simple point, what would I find?

What would be the point of "having an agenda" in a usual, civilized discussion?

I didn't say you "had an agenda" - that's an idiomatic phrase in English, with its own kind of different implications.

As far as some possible agenda of yours here interfering with your ability to discuss even simple matters like this: It's an alternative to mental incapability, which is the other obvious possibility for the fourth time around the same simple point of argument, and you having learned nothing.

Think about it, iceaura has repeated the same argument even four times!!!111 And I have not accepted it anyway.

Acceptance (?) would be a step or two after comprehension - not on the horizon, as far as I can see. But the incomprehension - that needs explaining, relevant as it is to this thread.

One question immediately: which comes first, the absurd denial or the inability to comprehend a discussion of it? Kind of a chicken and egg setup.

So let's start there: Why do you think you are responding as if you had no idea what I was posting?

 

[Schmelzer]

No, I'm not.

Means, you are a liar.

Nonsense. It's the thread topic, and nobody is at the slightest risk of anything like imprisonment over it.

You may be not at risk. I'm not too, but this is only because the accusations of Holocaust denial against me, which have been made here, are so completely stupid that even the German justice would be laughing. But, beyond this, in principle I would be in danger, Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, I'm a German citizen, so, even being in Canada would not protect me from German justice. Moreover, I even spend some time in Germany.

Now if I presume this is deliberate concealment on your part, a pretense of incomprehension to abet deflection or trolling of some kind, we're back to the "agenda" comment you regarded as (bizarrely) "totalitarian thinking". But if I look for some other obvious approach to explaining why you are still posting clueless babble about "Party lines" after four repetitions of a fairly simple point, what would I find?

You would probably find that I judge about you using your totalitarian language. As you would, say, not believe people who cry "Heil Hitler", that they are in no way against Jews and do not want at all to put somebody into concentration camps, I do not believe that you, crying all the time "denier", don't want to see any action against those evil deniers.

As far as some possible agenda of yours here interfering with your ability to discuss even simple matters like this: It's an alternative to mental incapability, which is the other obvious possibility for the fourth time around the same simple point of argument, and you having learned nothing.

Iceaura in the position of the teacher, and everybody else as those who have to learn. LOL.

Given your behavior, it is really time to stop discussion with you.