Southern Poverty Law Center - Irresponsible Lying Scumbags?

[ok doser]

...your vocal support for the founder of Westboro...

...hasn't happened in this thread

Let's keep the discussion focused on Murray

 

[Arthur Brain]

...hasn't happened in this thread

Let's keep the discussion focused on Murray

It's happened in an adjoining one so why so reticent to address your vocal support for Westboro and Fred Phelps? They more than "deserve" to be on SPLC's list of hate groups for their vile picketing of US soldiers funerals and their celebration of the deaths on 9/11, never mind their "God hates fags" garbage. Yet you call the SPLC a bunch of scumbags while endorsing Phelps as a "Godly man"?

No wonder you want to keep things focussed on Murray and scurry away from that. Murray's been addressed enough.

 

[ok doser]

His and his co-authors controversial "conclusions" in relations to blacks that have been subject to learned criticism as it is:

Allegations of racism[edit]
Since the book provided statistical data supporting the assertion that blacks were, on average, less intelligent than whites, some people have feared that The Bell Curve could be used by extremists to justify genocide and hate crimes.[51][52] Much of the work referenced by The Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund, which aims to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences, and has been accused of promoting scientific racism.[53][54][55] Murray criticized the characterization of the Pioneer Fund as a racist organization, arguing that it has as much relationship to its founder as "Henry Ford and today's Ford Foundation."[48]:564

Evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves described The Bell Curve as an example of racist science, containing all the types of errors in the application of scientific method that have characterized the history of scientific racism:

claims that are not supported by the data given
errors in calculation that invariably support the hypothesis
no mention of data that contradict the hypothesis
no mention of theories and data that conflict with core assumptions
bold policy recommendations that are consistent with those advocated by racists.[56]
Eric Siegel published on the Scientific American blog that the book "endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities. Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use. The net effect is to tacitly condone the prejudgment of individuals based on race."[57] Similarly, Howard Gardner accused the authors of engaging in "scholarly brinkmanship", arguing that "Whether concerning an issue of science, policy, or rhetoric, the authors come dangerously close to embracing the most extreme positions, yet in the end shy away from doing so...Scholarly brinkmanship encourages the reader to draw the strongest conclusions, while allowing the authors to disavow this intention."[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

none of those are examples of Murray's conclusions

again, i encourage you to quote what he's said, not what other people have said about him

His throwaway comments in regards to women have already been addressed.

and responded to

have you come up with a single prominent female philosopher, for example?

 

[Arthur Brain]

none of those are examples of Murray's conclusions

again, i encourage you to quote what he's said, not what other people have said about him


and responded to

have you come up with a single prominent female philosopher, for example?

Murray has been responded to enough already and you're only banging on that drum to avoid the actual hate groups that the SPLC rightfully points out and one in particular that you personally endorse and lack the courage to defend.

Want an example of a highly intelligent and philosophical woman? Fred Phelps's granddaughter and the video was supplied a coupla posts ago. Watch it and learn.

 

[ok doser]

... I empathize with those who disagree with (Murray's) conclusions.

Which conclusions, specifically?

(no specific conclusions of Murray's)

none of those are examples of Murray's conclusions

again, i encourage you to quote what he's said, not what other people have said about him

have you read any of Murray's writings?

can you google "Charles Murray conclusions" and provide one you find problematic?

'cause if not, you're showing the same lack of intellectual curiosity as those students at Middlebury

 

[Jonahdog]

Ok likes Westboro? Quelle surprise

 

[Arthur Brain]

too bad artie, i really thought you were interested in the subject matter :sigh:

Of the thread? Sure, but not your rabbit trails soley on Murray and your double standards for when the SPLC identifies proper hate groups like Westboro.

As per usual with you, when caught in a double standard you'll do anything to avoid it, yet you support a group that celebrates the deaths of American soldiers and people killed in the likes of 9/11. Are the SPLC "irresponsible scumbags" for identifying such as an extremist group? That's right on topic for this thread.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ok likes Westboro? Quelle surprise

Yup:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ized!-Part-5&p=5295572&viewfull=1#post5295572

For some reason he's none too keen to address it on the very thread where he could deride the SPLC yet further for identifying Westboro as a hate group and defend Phelps and the church he endorses so much.

Go figure.

 

[ok doser]

Of the thread? Sure, but not your rabbit trails soley on Murray ...

:doh:

Murray is the subject of the OP :nono:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Many of you will remember this protest from march 2016 at Middlebury college in Vermont - the backstory - Charles Murray, a prominent political scientist, author and columnist, was invited to speak at Middlebury college. Student protests disrupted the event and in the aftermath, Murray and his escort, Middlebury professor Allison Stanger, a diehard liberal, were attacked by protesters and Stanger suffered a neck injury and concussion. This was one of many incidents of left wing violence on college campuses at the time and Middlebury was rightly held up to a huge amount of scrutiny and ridicule.

Murray is introduced at 18:45:

As outlined before, Murray isn't a "hate figure" although his "science" is hardly beyond scrutiny, that having being established already. The SPLC are not responsible for the violent actions of students on campus regardless. You think blaming the SPLC would fly in a court of law? No, violent actions are down to the perpetrators of it themselves.

and here's a story about a different target of the SPLC who chose to fight back, hard:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility After years of smearing good people with false charges of bigotry, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has finally been held to account. A former Islamic radical named Maajid Nawaz sued the center for including him in its bogus “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” and this week the SPLC agreed to pay him a $3.375 million settlement and issued a public apology.

They dropped the ball on that for sure. However, they didn't shy away from the mistake, paid compensation and issued a public apology for it. Here's another: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit legal advocacy group, has placed potential 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson on its “Extremist Watch List” for his views against same-sex marriage. Again, I'd hardly agree that Carson's personal, religious views render him an object of hate or make him an extremist so the SPLC doesn't get everything right, that's a given. If you're going to blame the SPLC for the actions of individuals then you have to equally lay blame for actual hate groups that advocate this stuff and to the extreme - like Westboro. How much hurt and suffering have such caused by picketing the funerals of soldiers and holding placards that celebrate 9/11? Now are you going to have the guts to stand by your words of support for Phelps and defend your stance? Explain why the SPLC are wrong when it comes to Westboro? :think:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:doh:

Murray is the subject of the OP :nono:

The SPLC is the subject of the thread. You used Murray as one example to try and slate the organisation overall and then expanded onto others.

 

[ok doser]

...to avoid the actual hate groups that the SPLC rightfully points out ...

i've never argued (on this thread) that the SPLC doesn't rightfully call out actual hate groups

is that what you think I've done?

 

[Arthur Brain]

i've never argued (on this thread) that the SPLC doesn't rightfully call out actual hate groups

is that what you think I've done?

Did they rightfully call out Westboro as one?

Yes or no?

 

[ok doser]

The SPLC is the subject of the thread.

the SPLC and the fact they are no longer a reliable source of information, as shown with the examples of Murray, Carson, etc

you appear to be arguing that they are reliable to some degree - my counterargument would be that they need to be 100%, or at least much more open to correction when they're wrong

You used Murray as one example to try and slate the organisation overall and then expanded onto others.

i don't know what "slate" means :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

the SPLC and the fact they are no longer a reliable source of information, as shown with the examples of Murray, Carson, etc

you appear to be arguing that they are reliable to some degree - my counterargument would be that they need to be 100%, or at least much more open to correction when they're wrong

You want 100% and you might as well do away with any organization no matter what their intent as that ain't gonna happen. They've identified plenty whacko outfits where their extremism is as plain as day such as...hmmm...

Well let's ask again. Did they rightfully identify Westboro as one?

Yes or no?

i don't know what "slate" means :idunno:

Right now I'm not altogether surprised. Informal usage: To "criticize severely".

 

[ok doser]

You want 100% ...

...they need to be 100%, or at least much more open to correction when they're wrong


they've been misrepresenting Murray for years

 

[Arthur Brain]

...they need to be 100%, or at least much more open to correction when they're wrong


they've been misrepresenting Murray for years

Then let him file a lawsuit. They've already acknowledged error as with the compensation and public apology elsewhere.

So, did they rightfully identify Westboro as a hate group?

Yes or no?

(Why is this oh so simple question causing you so much difficulty?)

:think:

 

[ok doser]

...they need to be 100%, or at least much more open to correction when they're wrong


they've been misrepresenting Murray for years

Then let him file a lawsuit. They've already acknowledged error as with the compensation and public apology elsewhere.

they acknowledge error reluctantly and only when forced to

this is not a good model for a self-appointed identifier of labels that have consequences

 

[Arthur Brain]

they acknowledge error reluctantly and only when forced to

this is not a good model for a self-appointed identifier of labels that have consequences

Like the consequences for families that have the funerals of their beloved picketed by nutjobs because they glee in the death of American soldiers? That have held placards stating their joy at 9/11?

Did the SPLC rightfully identify Westboro as a hate group, yes or no?

It's a really easy question dude.

 

[Stripe]

and for saying that, the SPLC would put you on their "extremist watch list" or charge you with belonging to a "hate group"

just as they did with Ben Carson

What's a SLPC? :idunno:

:mock: Poor people.