Fatheaded Ed is talking through his hat again
Ignoramus Fatheaded Ed Brayton tries to give the illusion of expertise on a broad range of subjects by glibly rattling off long strings of unsubstantiated "facts" that he just pulls out of thin air. An example is the following statement:
.
"[At] a time when most people still thought slavery was the natural order of things"? Darwin was a Briton and Great Britain banned the Atlantic slave trade in 1807, before Darwin was born. Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833.
What "creationist counterparts in the United States"? Ed does not identify them. Darwin introduced his evolution theory to the world in 1859 with the publication of his "Origin of Species," so there was very little time for development of a creationist opposition to his evolution theory before slavery was abolished in the USA in 1865. Almost no one in the USA continued to defend slavery after it was abolished there.
Ed continues with more of his "batshit wingnuttery" (one of his favorite expressions, along with "for crying out loud") --
Ed is so full of living crap here that it is coming out his ears. He presents no evidence to support his thesis that science deserves credit for the reduction in racism. We have known since time immemorial that the races can interbreed and hence belong to the same species. Science has actually been used to promote racism. Wikipedia says of biologist Charles Davenport, the founder of the Eugenics Record Office,
Later, physicist William Shockley and the book The Bell Curve used the results of intelligence tests to argue that blacks as a group are intellectually inferior.
Furthermore, Fatheaded Ed helps maintain this illusion of broad knowledgeability by censoring comments and commenters that contradict him. He could have a little credibility if he would at least allow commenters to contradict him.
.
.
Darwin, of course, was actually quite enlightened on racial issues compared to the civilization and times he lived in. He was an outspoken opponent of slavery, for example, at a time when most people still thought slavery was the natural order of things. Indeed, he was far more enlightened on this question than his creationist counterparts in the United States.
"[At] a time when most people still thought slavery was the natural order of things"? Darwin was a Briton and Great Britain banned the Atlantic slave trade in 1807, before Darwin was born. Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833.
What "creationist counterparts in the United States"? Ed does not identify them. Darwin introduced his evolution theory to the world in 1859 with the publication of his "Origin of Species," so there was very little time for development of a creationist opposition to his evolution theory before slavery was abolished in the USA in 1865. Almost no one in the USA continued to defend slavery after it was abolished there.
Ed continues with more of his "batshit wingnuttery" (one of his favorite expressions, along with "for crying out loud") --
The whole world was racist back then, or at least the large majority of it. Even those who opposed slavery in the staunchest terms could hardly bring themselves to believe that the races were actually equal. What changed that? Science, of course, particularly biology. The data makes clear that there are no extent subspecies of Homo sapiens, that we are all one species, all equally "evolved."
Science has shattered the myth of racial division over the last 150 years.
Ed is so full of living crap here that it is coming out his ears. He presents no evidence to support his thesis that science deserves credit for the reduction in racism. We have known since time immemorial that the races can interbreed and hence belong to the same species. Science has actually been used to promote racism. Wikipedia says of biologist Charles Davenport, the founder of the Eugenics Record Office,
Davenport, along with an assistant, also attempted to develop a comprehensive quantitative approach to the question of miscegenation, or, as he put it, "race crossing" in humans. The resulting work, published in 1929, Race Crossing in Jamaica, purported to give statistical evidence for biological and cultural degradation following interbreeding between white and black populations. It is today considered a work of scientific racism, and was criticized in its time for drawing conclusions which stretched far beyond (and sometimes counter) to the data it presented.
Later, physicist William Shockley and the book The Bell Curve used the results of intelligence tests to argue that blacks as a group are intellectually inferior.
Furthermore, Fatheaded Ed helps maintain this illusion of broad knowledgeability by censoring comments and commenters that contradict him. He could have a little credibility if he would at least allow commenters to contradict him.
.
Labels: Ed Brayton (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/30/2007 09:09:00 AM
12 Comments:
> Some people just can't make a point, so they resort to name-calling. <
> Ignoramus Fatheaded Ed Brayton<
> We have known since time immemorial that the races can interbreed and hence belong to the same species.<
This test of species has never been taken seriously by competent scientists. Nearly every species of cat can interbreed. Zebras can interbreed with horses. Wolves, Coyotes and domestic dogs can interbreed.
While male ligers are sterile, female ligers are fertile ...
Larry, you missed(?) the fact that Ed said absolutely nothing about anyone believing that the races were different species. He said subspecies. I assume you do know the rather difference between the two? Before science had fully explored the variability of humans and before we had genetics, it was perfectly reasonable to think that the human species might have been composed of several different subspecies based on the fact that different populations look really different. That isn't racist, its just an observation. We now know that we are all part of one big gene swapping swarm with no subspecies and there is no biological/genetic bases for human "races".
So, "We have known since time immemorial that the races can interbreed and hence belong to the same species." Thanks for stating the obvious and completely misstating what he said. It does wonders for your credibility.
>>>>> Larry, you missed(?) the fact that Ed said absolutely nothing about anyone believing that the races were different species. <<<<<<
Whatever. My point was that Ed's claim that science deserves credit for the decline in racism is ridiculous.
>>>>> Thanks for stating the obvious and completely misstating what he said. It does wonders for your credibility <<<<<
There is nothing wrong with making an honest mistake. The reason why I have much more credibility than Ed is that I do not practice arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments.
Ed Brayton is a smart man, with whom I often agree. However, he is such a knee-jerk liberal that it is painful to read his columns, which I thus mostly avoid. There is no cult that is too depraved or destructive to gain Ed's enthusiastic support as an exemplar of P.C. multiculturalism (except Christianity). For example, Ed recently argued strenuously that it was fine for new Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison to take his oath of allegiance on the Koran. (It turns out that Ellison supports terrorism, as many feared.) But you can see what he says about Janet Folger (title of his essay: Folger's Flunky Responds (sic)). Earth to Ed Brayton: good Muslims execute homosexuals. So, Ed, suppose you have to choose between Muslims and homosexuals? What, oh what, will you do?
I would also question how much "racism" has really declined since Darwin's day. Racism is merely an extension of family values. What has changed (fortunately) is what people are willing to justify by racism. Slavery and genocide are taboo. People realize now that other races are human and are our brethren.
It is absurd to claim that science has proved there is no difference between the races. That is not science, it is Political Correctness.
One other thing that has changed is that blatant racism has become the exclusive prerogative of various minorities. It's been pointed out that the "Congressional Black Caucus" is an un-American concept (I agree). And there's "La Raza" for the Mexicans, which sounds so peachy in English -- "The Race".
> The reason why I have much more credibility than Ed is that I do not practice arbitrary censorship of blog visitors' comments. <
Larry demonstrates his ability to state the opposite of the truth with great precision.
1. Ed has much more credibility than you. (doesn't everybody?)
2. You have practiced arbitrary censorship (at least in the past).
3. You have never given any example of arbitrary censorship by Ed.
Where are you ViW? I am tired of doing your job.
< Wolves, Coyotes and domestic dogs can interbreed. >
I've been reading a fascinating book, Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade, about human prehistory. It talks briefly about the domestication of the dog. It seems most likely that all domesticated dogs are descended from a single litter of wolves in Siberia, and only 15,000 years ago (startlingly recent). There were three key adaptations to cause domestication. One was "tamability". Another was an instinct for barking (wolves can bark, but seldom do). The third was a knack for reading human body language. These features made dogs so useful that they were adopted rapidly throughout Eurasia. The pre-Columbian dogs in the Americas were not derived from local wolves, but were brought with them by the Indians. Domestication was a "good deal" for these specialized wolves, and they have thus fared much better than their wild relatives.
P.S. The primary initiative for the domestication was probably taken by the wolves themselves.
Nom de Plume said (Wednesday, August 01, 2007 2:14:00 AM) --
>>>> Ed Brayton is a smart man, with whom I often agree. <<<<<
I often agree with him too. And being smart (and he is often not smart) is no excuse for arbitrarily censoring blog visitors' comments. I don't care if he's the biggest genius in history.
>>>>> However, he is such a knee-jerk liberal that it is painful to read his columns, which I thus mostly avoid. <<<<<<
If you mostly avoid reading his columns, then what is your basis for saying that he is a smart man? He could be quite stupid in his columns that you avoid.
I certainly agree that he is a knee-jerk liberal. For example, I am not against gay rights -- in fact, I am in favor of gay civil unions -- but Ed treats bans on gay marriage like they are some kind of gay holocaust. I think that Ed must be gay himself -- only a gay could be such a fanatical advocate of gay marriage.
>>>>> So, Ed, suppose you have to choose between Muslims and homosexuals? What, oh what, will you do? <<<<<
Not that I have anything against Muslims or homosexuals, but Ed is often two-faced. For example, he condemned Glib Fortuna of StoptheACLU for complaining that the ACLU opposed freedom of speech for campus Christian groups, then praised a liberal for making the same complaint in even stronger terms in the Wall Street Journal. Ed's explanation for the double standard: Fortuna's complaint was "batshit wingnuttery." See this post.
< If you mostly avoid reading his columns, then what is your basis for saying that he is a smart man? He could be quite stupid in his columns that you avoid. >
I've seen ample evidence of both.
> no excuse for arbitrarily censoring blog visitors' comments. <
You have continued to dodge requests to cite examples of Ed's "arbitrary censorship". It doesn't seem to occur. Either cite an example or get off your high horse.
Ed Brayton sure does engage in censorship.
I continue to post on his blog, comments such as that I'd like to butt-fuck him, but he continues to remove my comments, even though they are meant with love.
Post a Comment
<< Home