Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    187

Nicky last won the day on January 2

Nicky had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About Nicky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

15162 profile views
  1. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Yes, one should. Preferably before basing insulting claims about billions of people on it. Did you research this? And what did you think? Are they accurate, and what specifically are they accurate AT?
  2. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Are you claiming that IQ scores are as accurate at measuring intellect as a ruler at measuring height, or basic record keeping at measuring lifespan? By the way, where are you getting the notion that most of us dismiss the average lifespan in Denmark as irrelevant from?
  3. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    By all means, dispel the doubt, by citing the studies and the findings. Only one I know about is Richard Lynn, who did a terrible job guessing national IQs from low sample sizes, non-uniform tests and conjecture, and then wrote a book that interpreted the results poorly (and that's a charitable choice of words). More importantly, once again: science has a poor understanding of what intellect even is. That's why it's such a struggle to create artificial intelligence: we don't really know how it works. So the notion that they have a test that quantifies intellect is ridiculous. The first thing you need, to measure something, is know how it works. Just to be clear: is it your position that IQ tests accurately quantify a person's intellect? Do you agree with all the assumptions the people who devised the tests made?
  4. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    That second statement doesn't confirm Watson's claim that IQ differences between whites and blacks are genetic, it contradicts it. If IQ is 80% genetic, then, clearly, the other 20% is environmental and cultural (cultural in the sense that it's culturally biased, not in the sense that the person grew up in a shitty culture...growing up in a shitty culture is an environmental factor). And since the (few, not all that reliable) IQ comparisons between Africans and Europeans claim about a 20% difference, there you go: that's due the environmental part and any potential cultural biases built into the tests. It's not like Psychology is a 100% objective science, that will produce a flawless test for objectively measuring intelligence across every culture and society. (and, frankly, this is all it would've taken to discredit Watson's statements: point out to him that any statement build on IQ tests is built on sand, not solid ground; I doubt he would've had much of a reply to that). So the 80/20 split (for the little it is worth, because the whole concept of IQ is worth very little) fully contradicts Watson: if environmental and cultural factors account for 20% of the IQ score, then Africans who live in terrible conditions, and are about as culturally different from the West (where the IQ test was developed) as humanly possible, are bound to have 20% lower score, even if their genetics doesn't differ, in any relevant way, from that of whites or Asians. P.S. The reason why I'm leaving free will out of this post is because I'm fairly confident this unnamed researcher didn't figure out a way to quantify it. So that's probably not included as a factor, in that other 20%. I'm assuming he just means IQ is split 80/20 between genetic and environmental factors, and he never even considered free will. Might not even believe in it. I of course don't believe that a person's intellect has to be the sum of his genetics and environment. I think it often is, but sometimes it's not. Not sure how much of a factor these outliers play in influencing the overall average though (especially since, if you're an intellectual outlier in a hellhole like Africa, your first order of business is gonna be to leave).
  5. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Just to be clear, because I'm having trouble believing what you're saying: if people who openly subscribe to Nazi ideology started pouring into New Zealand (and you lived there), you wouldn't be in favor of the government halting the migration at any point? Not at one million, not at three million, not even at five million? As long as they're not part of an organized invasion, they're just regular migrants who happen to subscribe to Nazi ideology, you would not want it stopped? You would rather allow Nazis to become the majority in the country you live in, than break with this belief you're clinging to that borders should always be open to non-criminal civilians? Do you understand that you would be executed within a year of them gaining majority, simply for being an Objectivist?
  6. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    This isn't some random guy off the street. This is one of the prominent geneticists alive. (Well he was, back when he first made these views known, over a decade ago. That's when he was ostracized ... now I don't think he's still of sound mind, these latest headlines are just the result of unscrupulous journalists taking advantage of a seriously ill 90 year old man.) Point is, when politicians, journalists and academics who don't possess that standing in the world of science dismiss him, that's not an effective strategy. If someone of higher status is wrong, he must be challenged, not ignored. Ignoring such a person is what allows his words to stand. Only laymen who would take the word of the PC Police in that scenario are the leftist ideologues. Everyone else is going to be skeptical of the reflexive "that's racist, he must be banned" reaction, and very likely to entertain the ideas Watson is presenting, on some level. And, in the absence of any argument against it, rightfully so. Rational people don't dismiss a controversial idea because someone's "various honors" were taken away by some college administrator. As evidenced by this thread. These views are becoming popular because they were left unchallenged. I suggest checking out the movie Denial for a blueprint on how someone who gains any kind of status, and is presenting flawed or evil ideas, should be dealt with in a free society (or read the book it's based on, if you prefer...but the movie did a good job too). If you think James Watson has been discredited in these views because mainstream politicians, journalists and academics ostracized him from public life, think again. That's not how this works.
  7. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Okay, so if you lived in New Zealand, you wouldn't be in favor of the government preventing millions of Nazis and white supremacists from settling in the country?
  8. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Nazis took over Germany while they were a small minority. And they only had a third of the vote, with most of that vote coming from people not actively involved in the party. Not everyone who voted for Hitler was a Nazi, they just liked him more than the weak alternatives. So 100 million Nazis and people who'd rather vote Nazi than let's say Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, WOULD realistically threaten to take over the US. Which leads me to conclude that the reason why you're fine with letting them try is because there's no way there's enough of them willing to move to the US. If so, I tend to agree, Nazi-ism isn't a big enough phenomenon to threaten a country of 330 million. Is that the reason? And, if so, would you change your answer if we were talking about New Zealand, instead? Because, if New Zealand opened its borders, and neo-Nazis and white nationalists across the world got it into their heads that NZ is a good place to congregate, there would be enough of them. They would be able to become a political force that would be a threat. It wouldn't even have to be massively organized. Just a naturally growing community that attracts more and more like minded people, until it's finally big enough that there's no stopping them.
  9. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Whatever. So do you plan on answering the question, or do you just wanna build childish arguments about how law abiding Hitler was?
  10. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    On the one side, Watson failed to exhibit some basic humanity, by using his public status irresponsibly, to spout unfounded nonsense that demeans billions of people. On the other side stand the brutish savages who are too stupid and intellectually lazy to face him in open debate and prove him wrong instead of banishing him. Oh yeah, and only one of the sides has the redeeming quality of having figured out the Double Helix (one of the great scientific discoveries of the 20th century).
  11. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Not sure why I need to explain that the Nazis weren't scrupulous, democracy loving, law abiding gentlemen, but here's some fun facts: Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in prison... prison he was sent to after being put on trial for high treason after the so called "Beer Hall Putsch", an attempted coup d'etat, with the use of elements of the military sympathetic to the fascist cause, in 1923. After his pardon by a fascist friendly court a year later, he followed that up with a campaign of violent street fights and rioting, and countless murders of political opponents. All this, while the Nazi Party wasn't even legally allowed to exist, on account of them trying to, you know, violently overthrow the democratically elected government a few years earlier.
  12. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    No, that's a contradiction of terms. The Constitution, if followed, does not allow for a dictatorship. The Nazis are advocating for establishing a dictatorship by whatever means necessary. They are openly Nazis. Have you ever heard of a Nazi who follows the US Constitution? Only thing that's not happening is that individual Nazis coming into the US are not walking up to the first LEO they see to tell him they're here to commit specific illegal acts. They are smart enough (or well trained enough) to only speak about their ideology and plans in general terms. And that is recognized as free speech in American law: you can say that you believe in the most heinous acts imaginable. You can be a member of NAMBLA (that's an organization that believes sex with per-pubescent children is moral). You can say killing cops is justified and commendable, and applaud when it happens. Etc., etc. It's all protected speech. And the Nazis take full advantage of all these precedents, and go as far as the law allows. (this is not some far fetched, theoretical scenario, btw. ... American neo-Nazis do all this already; only thing they can't do is bring in their buddies from around the globe, because the Feds have the power to deny pretty much anybody, for any reason, permission to work or settle in the US...or even so much as visit, if they're from a country that requires a visa for entry).
  13. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Just to get ahead of this: the hypothetical Nazis in my example have not expressed any desire to illicitly participate in the government of the US...or to break any other laws on the books. They haven't expressed the contrary, either (presumably, they were never even questioned about it, since entry is free as long as you can prove your identity and have no criminal history, it's not like they would make you pinky swear that you won't break any laws in the future when you cross the border). And some of them will start using guerrilla tactics to intimidate everyone they hate and everyone who opposes them as soon as they enter the country, but, for all we know, any one individual Nazi could simply be planning to live in peace, earn their citizenship legally, and then vote for the next Hitler, also perfectly legally. There's no proof that any specific Nazi entering the country is planning to abuse the system, and their sponsors are not expressly encouraging them to do so.
  14. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    To me, it FEELS LIKE you think expressing a preference for a government system that doesn't involve periodical free elections to establish who runs the government (i.e. expressing a preference for a military dictatorship, a socialist revolution, a fascist totalitarian state, or for that matter a state of anarchy) constitutes sedition. I say feel like, because you haven't even come close to accurately describing what is and what isn't sedition.
  15. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    That wasn't the question. That was just a statement of fact: that's what US law says. Being a Nazi (with everything that implies, as described in my post above) is not a crime in the United States. So, with that fact in mind, do you want to answer the question: should it be a right to organize the mass migration of ideological Nazis, who's stated goal is to create a fascist, national socialist government, and then achieve racial harmony by having the government murder all non-whites, into the US? Again: holding and expressing such beliefs is the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans. That's not what my question is. My question is, should it also be the right of would be immigrants, or should there be a double standard?
×