RF, you are a quack. It does no good for you to extract certain aspects of behavior from the larger context. Genetics are influenced by environment, its unaviodable.
The problem is that there are no tests that can seperate the entire cause and effect and discover why some races do better or worse in IQ tests. The studies aren't conclusive or in-depth enough.  (For example, a study of black children raised in white homes did BETTER on tests than average white students - which indicates that opportunity to what society offers the white culture in our country affects all people for the better.)

There is a fear that people will discover that one race is inferior in some regard. A valid fear since the ramifications could be catastrophic if used for one reason or another.

However, that is not to say it isn't true. The races COULD BE different, and if so, that truth shouldn't be ignored but we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on incomplete data.

The irony, of course, is that RF's world view would be that God made the races different. Let the apologetic fireworks ensue!

Luckily, truth doesn't need apologetics. Whatever the case is, it is the case and we are responsible for what we do with it.

Dp you think an employer needs to employ someone who would bring all future funding to a halt and blemish the institution because of an unsubstatiated claim?

Nazwald, (hahaha, I think its funny), I think he should have been fired, don't you? I think anyone has a right to speak their mind.

You have a right to speak yours, just don't expect to be handed money from people who disagree with you. They have the freedom to do that.

The problem I see is not that he voiced an opinion, but that he did so with a lack of data and he represents organizations that are better than that.

He hasn't lost his livelihood: the KKK or Aryan Nation would be happy to employ him now. Should he take the job?


Regardless, somewhere, someone is doing the research and the data will eventually be released for better or worse.  Facts are facts.

But, why is this so important to you? Do you like when scientists give unsubstaniated opinion about things? Get over it, it was a bone-headed comment (he wasn't "bringing up the subject" he was opinionating) and an employer is allowed to hire and fire who they wish within reason and the law. As a prominent figure, he was justified in being fired because his comments would have been detrimental to the organization.

Do you feel that we are well served by scientists opinionating on matters in which they don't have the data?

I think you are confused. a company can hire and fire who they wish (within the law). an employee that brings negative attention to the company and affects its ability to operate should be let go.
yes, they were right to do what they did.
you seem to think the only way these people could have free speech is when in the employ of a company.
you seem to be oblivious to how the world works.
do you really think people should be able to say what they want AND have a company support them?
no one stopped mahr and the DC's from free speech.
get over it, please. there are bigger issues.

Well, perhaps. However there seem to be cries of censorship when it happens to cultural marxists but not otherwise.

OswaldTheOsprey

Oswald, I don't think your use of the term "cultural marxist" is really effective.

Yes, there was an attempt to translate marxist theory into cultural terms.

The way you use the term as a catch all phrase makes it more or less meaningless though.

I've seen you apply the term to things that definitely did not represent the ideas your talking about many times, so I must admit that I'm fairly clueless to exactly what it is you mean when you use it sometimes. I almost get the sense that any time someone presents an anti-racist viewpoint, it is "cultural marxism", in which case it is by no means necessarily negative.

Please read this article.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html