Ops-Normal.org

Trying to remember whether it was Copernicus or Galileo who got burned at the stake for saying Earth was NOT the center (centre) on the Universe.

Guess Doc W got off easy.

Hands up anyone here who doesn't agree with him. Can't see any raised hands.

Giordano Bruno was braai'd by the Roman Catholic Church bosses for his scientific views that stars were possibly suns with planets and maybe hag extraterrestrial life. He also had a few good cracks at the damn church itself.

Copernicus was never chargrilled - he died of apoplexy.

Galileo was threatened with becoming a flambé by the RCC if he didn't recant. He did officially, but unofficially remained solid in belief at the evidence presented in the sky.

As for Doc Watson i thinks it's more Culture than Race. The 332nd P51 Redtails proved this conclusively in WW2. With regards the African continent it's culture that's fuct it up and will continue to do so. Besides, who gives a sh!t about the place (except SA) anyway? I don't believe any story the Beeb sprukes (except the weather report - how can you have a leftist one?) and would need to see Watson's data on this first. A mob like the BBC wouldn't dare publish that.

With all due respect may I say fcuk what his fellow scientists say. Look at what government-funded climate change 'scientists' say about scientists who disagree with Gore's climate change scam - and who provide proper data to prove it.

Slasher wrote:I don't believe any story the Beeb sprukes (except the weather report - how can you have a leftist one?) and would need to see Watson's data on this first. A mob like the BBC wouldn't dare publish that.

- I cannot see any problem with that news item, Slasher - is it not purely reporting fact? Do you see it as 'leftist'?

Sadly, James Watson has turned into a senile old crank! That he has always been a tedious racist is beyond doubt. A martyr to science he is not and comparing him to Bruno is a category error given that Bruno's views were science based and correct whereas Watson's opinions in this sphere are not science or empirically based at all.

There is absolutely no basis in science for his views as much the unenlightened would wish them to be true. No doubt his views chime with some here whose views might have been in vogue in the 1500's but that doesn't make them correct, any more than the Catholic's Church views on contraception, the non-heliocentric basis of the solar system or even Bruno were etc. are or were.

In some ways he reminds me of this guy..

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

Guys like Watson, Shockley and Huw Everett (amongst others) are a just a warning to us all, that intelligence in one narrow sphere doesn't preclude idiocy in other spheres, and some so-called geniuses, have actually been shocking examples of human beings, prey to prejudice and informed bias in many facets of their lives, just as we all are. Even Einstein wasn't above approach, having deserted his wife and handicapped child in his youth.

Caco

But there are clever blacks. There are differences though. Is it a difference of percentages? Are more non-blacks more intelligent than blacks in proportion, and I limit my remarks to those of African origin.

Is it more a question of education? Not individual education but multigenerational education changing culture and knowledge over time? I could develop an essay on this theme.

Another theory, and my tutor some years ago agreed, is temperate zones and intelligence and endeavour. The majority of work and endeavour is in temperate zones. I would argue this was from necessity to survive whereas those in forest or tropical zones had less need to develop beyond subsistence.

Boac wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:14 am

Slasher - is it not purely reporting fact? Do you see it as 'leftist'?

I am not going to debate Boac. You can add the Washington Post, Gruniad, MSNBC and CNN to the list. Bunch of ballwashing lying bastards the lot of 'em. As I said the Beeb's weather report by its very nature is apolitical. I admit it's quite good.

Caco good post. I'm sure you're aware though that, unlike religion and politics, anything can be postulated in Science - but the proofs have to be posted and rigorously tested by fellow scientists with primarily a skeptical attitude. This is why I mentioned before I'd have to see his data first before discarding his theory no matter how weird or dumb it appears.

I haven't followed Watson or his career but if even if he's a racist crank he still needs to produce the evidence.

Even I as a self-confessed racist in some ways would not concede that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites. What possible scientific foundation could such a claim have?

Do some people confuse lack of education and lack of (what we consider as) civilisation in western society as lack of intelligence?

What is intelligence, how is it measured?

Slasher - that is pitiful. I did not ask for a 'debate' - merely asked you a question. I'll ask it again with some emphasis for you:
I cannot see any problem with that news item, Slasher - is it not purely reporting fact? Do you see it as 'leftist'?

It should be a simple yes or no. Believe me - you are going to come across far harder questions as a sim instructor.

I found this article well written; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 25556.html

The way I see it, is that he is a product of his time and hopefully as his generation dies so will all these outdated ideas. I remember one occasion when I was watching the news with my grandmother and she made comments about how the BBC shouldn't be allowed to show gorillas on the telly. OK it was Idi Amin.............

Capetonian wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:16 am

Even I as a self-confessed racist in some ways would not concede that blacks are innately less intelligent than whites. What possible scientific foundation could such a claim have?

Do some people confuse lack of education and lack of (what we consider as) civilisation in western society as lack of intelligence?

What is intelligence, how is it measured?

Your honesty is one of the reasons I like you.

As for the rest I agree with you entirely.

Caco

Boac wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:22 am

Slasher - It should be a simple yes or no. Believe me - you are going to come across far harder questions as a sim instructor.

Ok fair enough - yes or no. Real patronising bastard aren't I!

I'm very "racist"when it comes to crap media outlets...sir.

And yes I will certainly have harder questions in the sim but:

a) it won't involve left wing (scuse the pun) rants from the kids

b) it will be something I enjoy giving answers to

c) won't involve CNN or the Beeb, and

d) won't involve politics.

If I ever did get political one of my questions might be: "hey look out the right window and tell me what wing you're tending to be closer to young fella?"

"I'm tending closer to the right wing sir."

"Good answer lad!"

Ok fair enough - yes or no.

- not a good idea as a trainer to be indecisive. I used to be, but now I just cannot make up......................

I actually worked with two blacks in London in the 1960. One from Nigeria was thick as the proverbial despite having a master's degree from a Nigerian university. The other from Guinea was bright as a whistle, super intelligent, loved by everyone. And I know a Nigerian brother and sister in Spain -the brother is friendly, charming and would give his last cent to someone in need. The sister is stupid, sullen and would cheat someone of their last cent. So 50/50. But why let facts stand in the way of my biases ? Any more of that snd I might start admitting the French are not all bad as I believe them to be.

If I ever did get political one of my questions might be: "hey look out the right window and tell me what wing you're tending to be closer to young fella?"

- aha! my opportunity to serve a blistering ace across the court and declare 'Game Set and Match'

Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:07 am

But there are clever blacks. There are differences though. Is it a difference of percentages? Are more non-blacks more intelligent than blacks in proportion, and I limit my remarks to those of African origin.

Is it more a question of education? Not individual education but multigenerational education changing culture and knowledge over time? I could develop an essay on this theme.

Another theory, and my tutor some years ago agreed, is temperate zones and intelligence and endeavour. The majority of work and endeavour is in temperate zones. I would argue this was from necessity to survive whereas those in forest or tropical zones had less need to develop beyond subsistence.

That's terribly condescending and jolly pratronising ( not an Sp ) to say so. And I'm sure any human being whose skin colour isn't pristine white, would duly bow in supplication to your erudition here, even more so as you had the advantage, ostensibly, of being educated at a UK public school. After all, what finer institutions could there be for continuing the ethos of superiority over lesser humans. And lets face it, nobody with any sense exposes themselves to working in excessive heat...apart from the British.

Back to the delightful science of...eugenics.

Tried and tested many times over the years, we can only imagine the tears of nostalgia that flow when black and white documentaries are shown with chaps in white coats studiously measuring cranium size with a set of vernier calipers. or measuring arms and legs with a tape measure.

Eugenics was created to support the bigoted, racist repugnant right wing ideology that was, and still is, desperate to attempt to produce "credible " evidence in support of their white supremacy beliefs. Strangely, should such vermin find themselves in need of, say, urgent medical attention and the surgical / nursing team comprises of a variety of ethnic groupings, again, all human beings in case anybody missed this salient point earlier, then you would be unlikely to hear one word of condemnation from their putrid gobs.

Just as an aside, our cockapoo is black......and she is a very intelligent dog.

Dunno about dogs. But cats....

55 men arrested in West Yorkshire for historical child abuse (BBC today). Racial origins not mentioned. Now that IS being racist.

I don't think any details can be given by the police until they are charged, OFSO, and no news outlet has, as far as I know, given any. That's just the way it should be done in a civilised society, OFSO, (unlike the way it was done with Cliff Richard). I think the last major arrests were in the late spring and in August 31 were charged and names released. Even then I think, 'Racial origins' were not given, and probably many were, in fact, British.

It is, however, acceptable, I feel to assume the majority of the 55 will be of 'Asian' 'Racial origins', but you will need to wait until you are told, I'm afraid, especially since the 55 have now been released pending investigation. You can always ring the West Yorkshire police and ask them for the nationalities.