|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 19:22:34 GMT
By the way, here is another of the APA's pronouncements, that gay parenting is just as good as mother-father parenting. Like all social science associations, it is deeply infected by cultural Marxism, political correctness, liberal-secularism, whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't adopt these sort of organisations as authorities if I were you. www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspxWith all due respect Maolsheachlann, that's not very relevant to the discussion. I never mentioned anything about the APA and though Mr. McMahon did, the mere fact that both myself and the APA oppose it proves only that we are both opposed to it, no more. In any case, the fact that the APA are wrong on a great many things in no way proves that Dr. Watson's views are correct. The point is that the APA are seen as the gold standard of psychological consensus and this shows how deeply politicized the field of psychology is, like all social sciences.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 19:24:05 GMT
With all due respect Maolsheachlann, that's not very relevant to the discussion. I never mentioned anything about the APA and though Mr. McMahon did, the mere fact that both myself and the APA oppose it proves only that we are both opposed to it, no more. In any case, the fact that the APA are wrong on a great many things in no way proves that Dr. Watson's views are correct. The point is that the APA are seen as the gold standard of psychological consensus and this shows how deeply politicized the field of psychology is, like all social sciences. And that makes Dr. Watson's views legitimate as a result?
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 19:28:53 GMT
I am familiar with the Burkean. Indeed, I have written two articles for it. burkeanjournal.com/reviving-the-irish-revival/www.theburkean.ie/articles/2018/03/02/book-review-borstal-boyPersonally I don't care about the race and IQ debate in itself. But I absolutely care about free speech and open discussion. The essence of the story is this line: "Even with the most cursory of internet searches, one can determine that the nature-nurture debate on this topic is far from settled." Even if different races have different average IQs, and this is innate, the fact does not seem terribly significant to me, nor do I see why it should be suppressed. I don't see what relevance Dr. Watson's other views have. This isn't a matter of free speech, private institutions have no obligation to provide legitimacy to what is essentially eugenics. As for open discussion, that assumes that the opposing points are equally morally valid, a situation that does not apply here. I highlighted Dr. Watson's views on abortion as they are part and parcel of his eugenic mindset (he is not merely passively "pro-choice", he actively supports abortion in the case of disability and has implied that those who keep their babies with such conditions are sadists), just as much as his scientific racism is. Highlighting his views on abortion is meant to hammer home the full implications of his views to those who wouldn't otherwise listen had I focused solely on his scientific racism. Mr. McMahon clearly endorses Dr. Watson's views, since he describes him as a modern-day Galileo, and speaks dismissively of "the endless aid given to countries with unsustainable population growth", so he is not merely giving him a platform in the name of free speech, he's actively promoting Dr. Watson's theories. The whole "this isn't a matter of free speech, this is the consequences of free speech" argument doesn't wash with me. Yes, you could argue that everybody has absolute free speech as long as the government isn't actively stopping them from speaking or writing something. But that's not free speech, that's just not Stalinism. Here is a comparable example. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/11/john-finnis-oxford-university-academic-freedom-lawThe Guardian, too, insist it is not a matter of free speech. (Edited: the writers of the article, rather than the Guardian, as it is an opinion piece.)
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 19:31:05 GMT
The point is that the APA are seen as the gold standard of psychological consensus and this shows how deeply politicized the field of psychology is, like all social sciences. And that makes Dr. Watson's views legitimate as a result? I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate".
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 19:35:21 GMT
And that makes Dr. Watson's views legitimate as a result? I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate". By "legitimate" I mean a view that can reasonably be held by anyone, regardless of whether or not it is wrong, without any negative consequences.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 19:41:31 GMT
By the way, this is what Watson said about abortion, according to the article you linked:
"He said last night that he intended to sue the newspaper for giving the impression that he advocated aborting babies if future advances in science led to testing for a gay gene, whereas he simply believes that mothers should have the right to abort foetuses for any reason."
Sadly, that is an extremely common position-- I find it as morally objectionable as you do, but are we going to demand that everybody who is pro-abortion be stripped of their awards? I'd be happy if they just weren't invited to speak at Vatican conferences...
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 19:49:13 GMT
I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate". By "legitimate" I mean a view that can reasonably be held by anyone, regardless of whether or not it is wrong, without any negative consequences. "Without any negative consequences" is a sweeping statement. There's a difference between someone crossing the road to avoid you and being stripped of your academic titles. Dr. Watson seems to me saying that there are innate differences of intelligence in races and social policy should take this into account. Is that really such an outrageous position? If he'd said anything actually hateful, you can be sure the quotation would have been dredged up.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 19:50:33 GMT
By the way, this is what Watson said about abortion, according to the article you linked: "He said last night that he intended to sue the newspaper for giving the impression that he advocated aborting babies if future advances in science led to testing for a gay gene, whereas he simply believes that mothers should have the right to abort foetuses for any reason." Sadly, that is an extremely common position-- I find it as morally objectionable as you do, but are we going to demand that everybody who is pro-abortion be stripped of their awards? I'd be happy if they just weren't invited to speak at Vatican conferences... I disagree that his views are extremely common - for one thing he believes that no one should be considered alive until they have lived to three days. From Prism magazine, May 1973:
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 19:55:56 GMT
By "legitimate" I mean a view that can reasonably be held by anyone, regardless of whether or not it is wrong, without any negative consequences. "Without any negative consequences" is a sweeping statement. There's a difference between someone crossing the road to avoid you and being stripped of your academic titles. Dr. Watson seems to me saying that there are innate differences of intelligence in races and social policy should take this into account. Is that really such an outrageous position? If he'd said anything actually hateful, you can be sure the quotation would have been dredged up. Yes, it is outrageous, because combined with his comments on African countries, he is suggesting (perhaps unintentionally) that black people are unfit to rule themselves. That's the type of thinking that was used to defend slavery, Jim Crow and apartheid, among other things.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 19:57:24 GMT
A view shared by Peter Singer, a very celebrated and respectable academic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion,_euthanasia,_and_infanticide Watson was not stripped of his academic titles for his views on abortion or infanticide, but for his views on race. The Burkean article was on this issue, too.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:03:07 GMT
A view shared by Peter Singer, a very celebrated and respectable academic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion,_euthanasia,_and_infanticide Watson was not stripped of his academic titles for his views on abortion or infanticide, but for his views on race. The Burkean article was on this issue, too. This wasn't a mere accident though, Dr. Watson has been advancing these views for decades. I'm actually surprised that people did not react sooner than they did. The fact that the people revoking the awards have their priorities messed up is a non sequitur - that doesn't somehow justify his scientific racism. There was a lot of oppostion to Singer too, and not just from social conservatives: Simon Wiesenthal openly objected to his presence at a book fair in Sweden, while the head of Forbes stopped donating to Princeton because of it. Admittedly, this doesn't rise to the level of reaction here, but it doesn't mean that Singer was allowed free reign to state his views unopposed.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:07:08 GMT
"Without any negative consequences" is a sweeping statement. There's a difference between someone crossing the road to avoid you and being stripped of your academic titles. Dr. Watson seems to me saying that there are innate differences of intelligence in races and social policy should take this into account. Is that really such an outrageous position? If he'd said anything actually hateful, you can be sure the quotation would have been dredged up. Yes, it is outrageous, because combined with his comments on African countries, he is suggesting (perhaps unintentionally) that black people are unfit to rule themselves. That's the type of thinking that was used to defend slavery, Jim Crow and apartheid, among other things. That is a massive leap. It's frightening how eager you are to suppress free speech based upon the implications and subtexts you read into statements, and on arguments from analogy and guilt from association.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 19, 2019 20:09:36 GMT
A view shared by Peter Singer, a very celebrated and respectable academic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion,_euthanasia,_and_infanticide Watson was not stripped of his academic titles for his views on abortion or infanticide, but for his views on race. The Burkean article was on this issue, too. This wasn't a mere accident though, Dr. Watson has been advancing these views for decades. I'm actually surprised that people did not react sooner than they did. The fact that the people revoking the awards have their priorities messed up is a non sequitur - that doesn't somehow justify his scientific racism. There was a lot of oppostion to Singer too, and not just from social conservatives: Simon Wiesenthal openly objected to his presence at a book fair in Sweden, while the head of Forbes stopped donating to Princeton because of it. Admittedly, this doesn't rise to the level of reaction here, but it doesn't mean that Singer was allowed free reign to state his views unopposed. The word "racism" has been drained of all meaning at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:11:57 GMT
Yes, it is outrageous, because combined with his comments on African countries, he is suggesting (perhaps unintentionally) that black people are unfit to rule themselves. That's the type of thinking that was used to defend slavery, Jim Crow and apartheid, among other things. That is a massive leap. It's frightening how eager you are to suppress free speech based upon the implications and subtexts you read into statements, and on arguments from analogy and guilt from association. But what about the free speech of his employers? By giving him free reign to advocate scientific racism without consequences, they are effectively saying that there is nothing problematic with what he is doing. In that case, the employer has every right to protect their good name, no (though in this case, the employer was heavily involved in the eugenics movement, so there may not be a good name in the first place)?
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 19, 2019 20:12:40 GMT
This wasn't a mere accident though, Dr. Watson has been advancing these views for decades. I'm actually surprised that people did not react sooner than they did. The fact that the people revoking the awards have their priorities messed up is a non sequitur - that doesn't somehow justify his scientific racism. There was a lot of oppostion to Singer too, and not just from social conservatives: Simon Wiesenthal openly objected to his presence at a book fair in Sweden, while the head of Forbes stopped donating to Princeton because of it. Admittedly, this doesn't rise to the level of reaction here, but it doesn't mean that Singer was allowed free reign to state his views unopposed. The word "racism" has been drained of all meaning at this stage. You think his views aren't racist?
|
|