There’s certainly more than meets the eye. One of the first things they try and do when they place children is to place them within the family. The Daily Prejudice’s motivation is questionable, but there certainly needs to be more transparency and accountability when it comes to how Children in care are treated.
Ah, a perfect Mail story. Get to complain about govt service/ social workers taking kids away too easily when last week it was all about how they never took kids away even if they were in real danger. Perfect oppotunity to have a go at the queers aswell. I looked at the print edition it said that they were placed with gays “despite the fact many heterosexuals wanted them” well that’s pretty irrelevent just because heteros want the doesn’t mean they are automatically good parents does it?? The gays probably were the most suitable or whetever, and just cos you like the opposite bits rather than the same doesn’t mean you get to have automatic “dibs” on kids.
Needless to say the online story about the adoption has provoked the usual ill-informed twitterings about “PC” and “Guardianistas”. Plus the usual “I’m not homophobic but…” As Sam said above, nobody seems to have questioned the fact that the grandparents’ last attempt at childrearing saw their daughter become a heroin addict. That would suggest that there may be a fairly good reason not to give them custody of their grand kids. Of course, why let the facts get in the way?
I’ve just been reading the comments below their online version of the story. Every sane measured comment has a big red negative rating, whereas every hysterical foaming-at-the-mouth anti-gay rant has a big green positive rating. After the Sun, this paper is the biggest selling in Britain, and politicians queue up to pander to it.
Honestly, reading the Daily Mail comments just depresses me no end. How is it that one of the most advanced countries in the world can still contain so many ignorant and spiteful morons?
“Honestly, reading the Daily Mail comments just depresses me no end. How is it that one of the most advanced countries in the world can still contain so many ignorant and spiteful morons?”
I couldn’t agree with you more. I used to read the comments on the DM website and it would get my back right up. I actually try and avoid it now as I find it very very depressing for exactly the reasons you give.
I now glare at people I see buying the DM in shops!
As people have mentioned, social workers first priority is to house children with the family, so they must have been incredibly unsuitable to have social services choose to foster them elsewhere, and as pointed out, they raised a heroin addict so that says something. The fact the adopters are gay is irrelevant, but the Mail are trying to make out that some ‘Guardianista’ social worker did it to fulfil their evil PC heterosexual hating agenda.
Now imagine if the grandparents were a gay couple (assuming one led a previously closeted married life as often happens) and the child was taken from them and put in a heterosexual home due to their age. Would this be headline news despite being morally and legally the same? No. There’s your evidence of bias right there.
Also if I’m not mistaken that photo is a publicity still from ‘Skins’ which is as completely over the top and unrealistic a portrayal of teenage life as is possible. So what if teenagers are using the internet to explore their sexuality? You telling me they wouldn’t be doing it regardless if there was no internet? For fuck’s sake, we’re all only human, what the hell is wrong with a bit of sex?
The Daily Mail point of view: nobody had sex or was curious about sex before the age of 20 until the 1960s, at which point the liberals took over and kids started fucking one another left, right and centre.
As for the main headline – the adopting couple being gay is relevant how exactly? Ah no wait, I see now. It’s a good excuse for some homophobia!
I’ve just braved the DM website to check out this adoption story. The comments on there are appalling. They have even run a poll to ask readers whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. At the time I looked at it, 10% said yes, 90% said no.
In this day and age, I find this atitude and this newspaper abhorrent.
Further to James’ comments, it did make me laugh how about half of the comments raging about this ABSOLUTEY DISGUSTING story don’t even live in the UK.
Why do I have the feeling that there is far more to this than the Mail spin lets on right now? Consider the front page about the Lancashire bigots a few years back –
‘All they did is ask for Christian literature to be placed next to gay marriage leaflets’ or words to that effect, as a sub-heading.
No it was NOT all. The hubby had snapped ’so are you going to put Christian literature out as well?’ down the phone, before asking the naive kid who took his call to reveal his sexuality during a little pressure campaign to get the gay marriage literature leaflets removed because the couple are Christians and they say it is a sin!
From pro-censorship god-botherers to freedom of speech martyrs via the Daily Mail.
You know I think its terrible that these children weren’t allowed to stay with their grandparents. It says something about state control and the social service. I would have let them stay with their grandparents instead of putting them up for adoption.
But whos cares if they went to a gay couple? The Mail make out that it’s worse that these children went to a gay couple instead of a hetrosexual one. That’s their problem not the fact that the state denied the right of the grandparents to looking after their own grandchildren. Who cares what they do as long as they bring them up rightly and properly! And then they have the gall to throw around this
“It will also fuel concern over the practice of gay adoption, which has been promoted by Left-wing ministers and council bosses.
“Some local authorities forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption – even though research shows overwhelmingly that children are best brought up by a mother and father. ”
That’s bollocks! There’s research that shows that children will do fine by being brought up by a gay couple. What’s the problem with two people wanting to give a child a loving home?
I’ve garnered over 800 thumbs down points on the DM website so far for what I thought was a perfectly balanced comment. Do I get a medal for reaching 1000? I’m tempted to go put in one mouthing off about Nu Labour/immoral lifestyles/Britain generally, but I’m afraid that people will take it all too seriously.
I managed to be late to college purely because I was getting too worked up reading those comments.
Shall we just abolish the Social Services and welfare state and see how the Daily Mail readers like it then?
Hmmm, regarding the research on gay parenting – I do wonder if a study found negative effects of gay parenting, would it even get published?
For example, look at the moral outrage when people have stated there are significant (not talking about the size of the gap, btw) differences in IQ between people from different ethnic backgrounds . Even thought the authors acknowledged many explanations for this, people automatically jumped on it as racism.
BTW – I’m not stating this point in specific response to same sex couples (certainly not if people knew me), but I think there is lots of research that people do not publish or undertake due to fear for their own career etc.
One matter that jumps to my mind is I know a study was done on ESP which found almost significant results. The study was done to appease a student, but the supervisor (a high-up academic) was worried about trying to publish the results for fear of coming across as a crackpot.
Most of the comments on the Mail site are angry that the children were taken away from their grandparents which is fair dues. Some of them seem to think the Gay couple were given preference over the hetrosexual couple in some sort of affirmative action type selection which is crap! Others like the douchebags below really take the biscuit.
“When are we going to stop kowtowing to political correctness? These children are being sacrificed on the altar of Gay rights. It is to be hoped that they will protest when they find that they have been handed over to …”
Oh yes of course the children are going to stage a protest in their own home. The minute they hear Liza Minelli they’re going to go mad! What an idiot.
“This situation is absolutely scandalous and should be thoroughly investigated. The children belong with their Grand Parents not with two strange men living strange lives in some perverted manner.”
“Where do Social Services find these idiots?
Answer: From the Guardian jobs pages.”
“Hmmm, regarding the research on gay parenting – I do wonder if a study found negative effects of gay parenting, would it even get published?”
yes it would
“For example, look at the moral outrage when people have stated there are significant (not talking about the size of the gap, btw) differences in IQ between people from different ethnic backgrounds . Even thought the authors acknowledged many explanations for this, people automatically jumped on it as racism.”
weather they were right or wrog to do so i can understand why people would react that way. but surely they could only have reacted this way if they study was published? in which case it isn’t much of an example.
One matter that jumps to my mind is I know a study was done on ESP which found almost significant results. The study was done to appease a student, but the supervisor (a high-up academic) was worried about trying to publish the results for fear of coming across as a crackpot.”
seems reasonable, if he only did the test to appease a student i dont see why that should have given him an obligation to publish it? also the study being done under thoughs kind of circumstances might have lead to it being performed poorly and thus being unsuitable for publication anyway. where did you hear about this?
No, I haven’t got anything better to do than visit this website. But at least I’m enjoying myself whilst I do it (must be all the wanking you seem to think I’m doing……..which I am!) So what’s your excuse then? You’re visiting a site to moan at people for moaning at other people? Have I got that right? Seems it may be you who needs to get the life! (by the way that argument will never ever persuade someone to get a life). I bet you have a small penis don’t you? Silly mook!
This is the first time I have written to a newspaper or magazine with a comment, but I felt compelled to do so. In all the years I have spent in this county, I can only say that your article on the adoption by two gays of a brother and sister leaves me feeling totally ashamed to live in England. What has gone wrong with good common sense. As a grand mother of four lovely children I have a closeness with them that nothing can ever deminish and it is discussing that the so called social services are so blind.
Please think about a campaign to help these grand parents.
I will be the first to sign.
@ Tom – My first thought was, I’ll admit, “err, haven’t you lot been wanting Social Services to take more responsibility for months now?”. But obviously not if it involves children being adopted by liberal gays. That’s as much of a tragedy, isn’t it.
I’m completley outraged as usual by todays lead story! A section of this story reads not only did they take the children away but they placed them with a gay couple when there are so many straight couples that would take them. I mean please what century is this? I know how difficult the adoption procedure is and this couple will have been vetted to within an inch of their lives. I’m also a gay parent and see no reason these men couldnt raise happy healtyh children. This story just gives the biggots that read the Daily Mail more ammunition…as if they needed it!
@ Moggie et al. The study was not significant, but it there was a clear trend. If you don’t understand that results not meeting 0.05 can still have important implications, I’m guessing you’ve not yet graduated, or do not have much of a science backgroun? The study used ERP (a form of neuroimaging) to collect the data. At present, most studies involving ERP are published.
The trend was also in expected direction & the academic is very prolific in his current field (he made professor in 14 years… if you include when he started his undergraduate degree & has many publications in Nature) – hence not wanting to follow this up, because he fears to much for his career.. I was present at a public lecture he gave, when he asked at the end if he should really follow this up. A neurologist in the audience said if other animals are able to detect/precieve things that we cannot such as different light waves etc, is it really that ridiculous a concept for humans to have the ability to perceive electrical signals happening in another humans brain.
“weather they were right or wrog to do so i can understand why people would react that way. but surely they could only have reacted this way if they study was published? in which case it isn’t much of an ex”
This was a perfect example. If you read it in the context it was intended – what happens if somebody makes an unpopular claim.
Oh, it’s such a shame. I’ve been out all day, but I’d have loved to comment on this. It’s a classic mix of homophobia, teenager bashing and fear of modern technology. I see we’ve even managed to attract a pathetic fucking troll along, who as Minneythekid said, comes on this site to attack us for attacking other people. It just doesn’t make sense. And as for the comments that Sarah showed us from the Hate Mail’s site, it is just sickening. I can’t believe you managed to bring yourself to reading them. I deliberatly don’t read them because they make me so angry, especially considering you can’t respond to them with a sensible comment on the site of the paper that constantly accuses Labour of being undemocratic.
I’ve seen it too James. You know I can’t agree with them more that taking these children away from their grandparents is wrong but the Mail is turning this into a Gay Adoption issue instead of “state control issue” and that’s where I’m pissed off. You know I think they look at how many comments they get on a story, gauge opinion and if everybody agrees with them they run with it. They dropped Johnathan Ross because nobody cared. Its a genius way to sell papers.
but it doesn’t support your suggestion that unpopular ideas are not published
For goodness sake, would you like an illustration to make things easier – it was a real-world example of what may stop somebody from pursuing an unpopular line of research. I also know of a study involving DNA that was refused ethical approval, because it may have caused bad publicity – despite every other aspect of this being in order.
If the Mail are telling the whole truth about this – and that’s a big if – then it is very wrong that the children’s and family’s wishes are being ignored, but unfortunately the Mail have undermined their credibility by trying to make it an anti-gay issue.
And the press are to blame anyway by ensuring that after Baby P, any family that presents even the tiniest risk will not be allowed a second chance to keep their children.
Wahay, I currently have a +9 rating for my comment on Melanie Phillips’ phlegm-rattling companion piece. At least a few people seem to agree with me that she veers completely off course, using this as a platform for another breathless rant about homos wanting to destroy/replace the ‘family’.
Could you include some links to evidence of your ‘real world examples’ of suppression of studies please.
The ‘racist’ study sounds a lot like ‘the Bell Curve’, which has been pretty thoroughly debunked for empirical reasons. And if there really were a study that provided some proof of paranormal activity, the person involved could easily approach James Randi, repeat the study and claim a million dollars.
“For goodness sake, would you like an illustration to make things easier – it was a real-world example of what may stop somebody from pursuing an unpopular line of research.”
no need to get tetchy, i was only replying to your initial question, and my reply was, no, i don’t think these kind of results would stop something from getting published, as contoversial results do get published, and the iq study you cited was an example of just that.
Matthew S – That’s a good point. They cry about sexualising teenagers, yet at least it isn’t the Express doing it, what with Desmond’s old ‘barely legal’ mags. I wonder just how many readers know him as a pornographer?
This is one of my favourite sites but I have to say I would prefer it if the comments were timed or numbered. I don’t know how difficult it would be to add such a feature to the revamp but It would make it much more simple to catch up on a return visit.
Thanks and regards.
5CC – that’s a good point regarding the payout., although this was only an early study. He did show many of the mistakes that previous studies had made & actually a large part of his talk was on possible confounds that explained his results – i.e. could the person behind the screen wearing earphones have somehow heard the button being pressed etc.
This guy was sceptical of his own research findings. Although the main point I was makingwas he doesn’t want to research this area for fear of damaging his succesful career.
Yes, the Bell Curve is flawed because it overlooks environment. The simple truth is there is probably a higher percentage of more intelligent whites than blacks in society because whites have access to better education. Simple.
The reverse is true for sports, where there are more black successful runners and boxers than white ones not because old whitey is not as physically strong, but because more blacks concentrate on sports than whites, again due to problems with social mobility.
The problem with ESP tests is that there’s no real way to separate results from coincidence or randomness. If someone could levitate a chair in front of me, then I’d believe it, but guessing the reverse of cards? Proves nothing.
Social Work will always attempt to place children within their families as a first option. They are legally obliged to hold family group conferences in order to identify family members who could care for the children. There is absolutely no possibility of an adoption order being granted, far less a placement of children made, without such avenues having first been explored.
A small but significant minority of people who care for their grandchildren are doing so despite ‘black marks’ against their names that would almost certainly prevent them from fostering or adopting unrelated children. I’m talking serious convictions here.
Adoption Orders are not granted by social workers; they are granted by courts and, if the order is contested by any significant family member, it can take months and even years to obtain one – they don’t just hand these things out. Social Work MUST satisfy the court that their are no other alternatives to adoption. A claim that the grandparents are “too old”, as is being suggested by this article, would simply not stand up in court. There would have to be incredibly compelling reason why the grandparents were not being considered as alternative carers but, of course, this aspect of the case is not explored at all in the article.
Social Work, quite rightly, will not discuss individual cases with the media but the downside of this is that they have no right of reply and the Mail can claim whatever it likes without coming close to a balanced report.
And I agree with others, the adoptive parents’ sexuality is irrelevant to this story.
Quote from one of the more rabid DM commenters. The scary thing is it received 120 positive recommendations.
“I read about the evil guerilla Militia Groups in Africa who kidknap young children, some as young as 6, and teach them to fight and kill – even their own flesh and blood if necessary…….
In my eyes, Social services have shown themselves to be no less evil, keniving and sick minded in their own actions, clearly attempting to turn these two innocent children against their own flesh and blood Grandparents”
PC, Steven, I agree as well. This site has now had many good changes made to it, but I wish it still had timed and numbered comments. Now on old articles, when people refer to other number comments, I don’t know what the hell they’re on about. Similarly, I need to know whether to bother commenting on an issue by seeing whether it happened in the morning or just a couple of hours ago. This is also my favourite site, but that’s the one thing I don’t like about it.
Stuart W, did she really say that? That’s unbelievable! That woman gets more vile and prejudiced by the day. Thank god she didn’t win the British blog award! I know she’s deeply christian and will have these beliefs, but jesus! (Sorry about the pun.) It’s good to see that even right wing Mail readers are disliking what she said. And congratulations for getting your comment printed on their pathetic site.
“The Family? ” I’m sure Melanie Philips would advocate banning single parents from adopting to as she seems to think they can’t do a good job either because both parents aren’t involved. I was brought up by my mother and my brothers and I have had no less of a loving home because my father wasn’t that involved. If one father can bring up his own kids then two men can surely do the same.
Melanie Philips likes to invent her own misery. Gay Adoption? Its the breakdown of the family! Its the end of hte Christian Church! These children will grow up to be Gender confused! As Russell Howard put it she’s part of the “What Next brigade.”
It disgusts me to think that the kids were almost put with a couple of old people. Those poor kids would have been raised in an environment rich with flatulence, Werther’s Originals, casual racism and Jeremy Kyle.
Poofs > Old people.
Steven…you talk about the Bell Curve and its drawbacks. Doesn’t the wretched state of Africa indicate some truth to it? Let’s switch to this country. Knife crime in London essentially means BLACK crime. I suspect that what is really going on here is that as the black population reaches ‘critical mass’ they start to revert to tribalism, hence all the ‘turf wars’. Evidence perhaps that Benjamin Disraeli was correct in saying that ‘race is all’.
All very provocative I concede, so let me stress my belief that the crimes committed by blacks pale into insignificance compared to what the white man has done to other races. What I really think is that it would have been much better for all concerned if OUR white ancestors had just left THEIR black ancestors alone in Africa.
The fact Africa is in a state while Europe prospers has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with quirks of history. A few left turns instead of rights and there’s no reason why Africa wouldn’t have dominated the world while Europe remained undeveloped. Here’s a similar example below.
In 1241, after conquering almost all of Asia, the Mongol armies were poised to attack and destroy the Holy Roman empire when Ogedei Khan died and all the commanders were called back to Mongolia and participate in elections and took their troops with them, taking months and huge logistics due to the distances involved.
100 years later the Renaissance began in Italy which set the stage for Caucasian dominance, when previously Arab and Chinese science eclipsed anything the West had developed, and a Mongol invasion would have prevented entirely, and led to Asians dominating the world instead for the next 700 years.
History is littered with events like this that change the course of the world, one man’s timely death in 1241 is such a crossroads, and Africa has just been on the losing end of more than Europe, and as soon as we got a technological edge and entered the age of imperialism, there was never a chance of them catching up ever again.
Yes knife crime in London is essentially ‘black crime’, but fraud in London is essentially ‘white crime’. Dos that make white people genetically dishonest? Or could it actually be the much more likely conclusion that crime is a social and economic phenomenon, not a racial one, and due to the said tides of history, different races generally have very different social opportunities.
Look at some Eastern European countries that are poorer than the UK but have very few non-white citizens, but have levels of knife crime that make ours look tame. That goes to show it’s not a race issue, but a socio-economic one. Also the overwhelming majority of serial killers and pedophiles by ratio are white. Are we all psychotic child molesters in our DNA too by your logic?
>Doesn’t the wretched state of Africa indicate some truth to it?
No. Some African countries are actually politically stable with growing, healthy economies (Botswana being a good example, as is Nigeria where GDP has doubled in the last few years). People who talk about the “wretched state of Africa” are like Americans who gas on about “secular Europe with its empty churches”; they’ve heard a few stories on the news and so they assume that people and countries on that continent are like that across the board. So Africa has DR Congo and Zimbabwe but it also has Botswana and Gabon. Fact is, Africans have proved that they’re capable of running prosperous, stable countries just like Europeans.
Apart from anything else, political instability and bloody warfare isn’t about intelligence as “sophisticated” Europe has proved several times in the last 100 years.
“Let’s switch to this country. Knife crime in London essentially means BLACK crime. I suspect that what is really going on here is that as the black population reaches ‘critical mass’ they start to revert to tribalism, hence all the ‘turf wars’”
And are you really saying that white people don’t do this? Northern Ireland? The Balkans? FFS, where I live there are plenty of white kids fighting and stabbing each other for being from the “wrong” part of the city or “wrong” religion. It’s absurd to pretend that “gang” violence is a colour issue.
“The study was not significant, but it there was a clear trend. If you don’t understand that results not meeting 0.05 can still have important implications, I’m guessing you’ve not yet graduated, or do not have much of a science backgroun?”
Sorry, I can’t let this (from above) go unchallenged (especially given the belittling of persons who ‘don’t understand’ your questionable statement).
You say the results show a clear trend. If it is that clear, and you have sufficient data, then the results would be significant. The fact that these results are not significant at the 5% level means (by definition of significance) that, assuming the null hypothesis (I presume this is that there is no ESP), there is at least a 5% chance that you would have obtained the results you did (i.e. the appearance of a trend when no such trend exists).
Basically, your claim that the ‘results show a clear trend’ is exceedingly misleading, since (from what you have written) THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY TREND AT ALL (you can’t even meet the 5% level, which is not very high at all – before I believed a claim of this magnitude I would want to see evidence far more significant than this level).
You say that insignificant results can have important implications – only insomuch as they may direct future work (if you believe there is a trend there, by all means conduct another (larger) study, which if you are right will probably give positive results). Insignificant results should not be treated as evidence of everything.
Basically, from what you have written, it seems a study into ESP was done. It found no positive results. This is hardly surprising, so it probably doesn’t merit publication. The only argument I see for publication is that as a negative result, it might make people more sceptical of the few studies which (by chance or malpractice) show evidence for ESP**.
Sorry to rant, but the number of people who claim to be scientists and show total disregard for the statistical principles on which experimental science relies really gets to me sometimes.
** I don’t believe in ESP: show me significant evidence for it and I will change my mind.
Blue moon- i totally agree, people claiming non- science to be science must be challenged. As a biomedical researcher i find the comments by ex-soldier very annoying, and the tone he has written them is also patronising and offencive. Anyone who wants to get a better idea of how to interpret science results should read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre- great book
Also, i don’t have a lot of time on my hads so probably will not get a chance to respond to an offensive rant by ex-soldier, but please realise that I am a researching scientist and am very concerned about the general misrepresentaion of science in the media.
Ah, the wishful thinking of white liberals, the most gullible creatures that there ever were. How many blacks have won Nobel Prizes in the sciences? We share a common humanity with them though, so I’m not a total racist. And of course cultural factors are hugely important. The Jews account for, I have read, about 25% of Nobel Prize winning scientists, even though they are a tiny fraction of the world’s people. Yet the Islamic world as far as I am aware hasn’t won a Nobel Prize in anything, a couple of writers maybe. So this would indicate that some cultures are greatly more intelligent than others. On this one you have to choose between a racial or cultural explanation. White liberals are terrified of making either choice.
I’m not terrified, culture is all. I’ll happily state the reason there’s very little black Nobel prize winners is the state of African economies and therefore education and the legacy of discrimination and poor communities of blacks abroad, ad the state of Arab science is almost entirely down to the permeation of hardline Islam that actively suppresses rational and independent scientific thought at worst, and provides very little support or encouragement at best.
Culture is a series of ideas and can be criticised like anything else, race however is totally arbitrary to people’s decisions in life, as remember European science was totally stagnant for a long time while Arabic science flourished and that was because our church dominated society repressed it while theirs allowed it freedom – totally the opposite situation to now.
I do agree though hat a lot of liberals (and I consider myself one) are afraid of condemning cultures outright which to me is nothing more than moral equivalism. Nazism was a culture and I think it’s as morally justified to criticise Islamic societies that prevent women from driving or showing their face in public and execute homosexuals and apostates and call for the mass murder of Jews as it was to attack Hitler.
“White liberals are terrified of making either choice.”
well no, the people who have already replied to you said it was down to cultural history, and i would agree, so i think the “white liberals” (not quite sure how you know the colour of everyone replying to you, but whatever) have made a choice, and explained it and length, shame it doesn’t look like you bothered reading it.
daveyp. Pick up a history book and you’ll realise that the Middle East was once the font from which all great learning poured and that the single greatest barrier to scientific advancement in world history was centuries of white Christian anti-intellectualism.
Oh and ‘Islam’ isn’t a race.
Bluemoon: you are right to say there is no significant association, however this does not mean that there is no association. All we can say so far as that there is no grounds for rejecting the hypothesis that there is no association. I know this is slightly pedantic, but I believe it is interesting that there was marginally significant results, and a study with greater power would be more conclusive.
“daveyp. Pick up a history book and you’ll realise that the Middle East was once the font from which all great learning poured and that the single greatest barrier to scientific advancement in world history was centuries of white Christian anti-intellectualism.
Oh and ‘Islam’ isn’t a race.”
If Islamic lands were so advanced in Medieval times how do you account for the steady decline in their achivements since then? Also, if the Church suppresed scientific advancment within Europe how do you account for Europes achivements, many of which Emanated from the Church itself?
“Ah, the wishful thinking of white liberals, the most gullible creatures that there ever were.
Lol, so you’ve accepted right wing thinking straight away then have you? The right can be gullible too you know.
How many blacks have won Nobel Prizes in the sciences?
“Scholar and diplomat Ralph J. Bunche became, in 1950, the first African American to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Bunche received the award for his role as the architect of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping efforts and for having negotiated the four armistice agreements that halted the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.
Toni Morrison (born Chloe Anthony Wofford won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1993 becoming the first African American woman to do so”
Now because your stating that no African Americans have won the science prize your automatically stating that every other nobel prize doesn’t require intelligence to win which is stupid. So I’m guessing the vast amount of asian people winning the science prize means white people are actually very dumb.
We share a common humanity with them though, so I’m not a total racist.
Not a total racist. What are you then. Half racist?
And of course cultural factors are hugely important. The Jews account for, I have read, about 25% of Nobel Prize winning scientists, even though they are a tiny fraction of the world’s people. Yet the Islamic world as far as I am aware hasn’t won a Nobel Prize in anything, a couple of writers maybe.
I think you’ll find the Muslim world has invented coffee, distilled alchol, algebra, soap, the paracute, magnifying glass, cheques, disitillation to name but a few. But if you want to go by the nobel prize for your average litmus test of racial intelligence then fine by me.
So this would indicate that some cultures are greatly more intelligent than others.
No it doesn’t.
On this one you have to choose between a racial or cultural explanation. White liberals are terrified of making either choice.”
I think reasons for intelligence are down to the individual themselves and to the opportunites around them. More importantly, who gives a shit? Do you actually sit about and ponder “my race is more intelligent than everyone elses? Does it actually matter?Liberals don’t sit around making choices as to why peoples races are dumb. In fact we don’t care about race and intelligence. That’s what makes us liberal.
Does it matter? If we’re going to start talking about which nation invents the most stuff I’m screwed because I’m Northern Irish. We haven’t invented anything since the D’Loren apart from showing how to rob a bank and throw a petrol bomb in the right direction. What is this inventoff 09?
“If Islamic lands were so advanced in Medieval times how do you account for the steady decline in their achivements since then?”
and if the roman empire was so advanced how do you account for the dark ages?
disclaimer: your technolocial advancement throughout hisotry may go down as well as up.
blimey dear, history isn’t “who wants to be a millionaire” once you reach a cirtain state of advacement and productivity in this or that area of life you don’t get to save. the only thing we can garner from the fact that the islamic world is not the centre of mathamatical and scientific advancement it once was is that the passge of time has occured (something it is now much easier to measure thanks to the arabic number system).
‘the only thing we can garner from the fact that the islamic world is not the centre of mathamatical and scientific advancement it once was is that the passge of time has occured (something it is now much easier to measure thanks to the arabic number system)”
Oh good lord, the idiotic use of history here is quite astounding.
Daveyp, John Barnes, et al. History is not inherently progressive. Nor is it inherently a law of decline.
Honestly, can you not see that in saying ‘Oh well look at the Arabs, they’re not clever now! SO THEY NEVER WERE!’ you are also stating, logically, that Western Europe is, has, and always will be, a great source of intellectualism. Yet I’m sure you know this isn’t true.
“Does ally know the BNP are actually quite leftist as well? They’re infact incredibly leftist and call themselves the old labour party.”
No they’re not and they’d hate you suggesting such a thing to their face. When they call themselves the “Labour Party your parents used to vote for” they mean that they see themselves as representing the interests of the white working class who (according to BNP thinking) the Left are no longer interested in. There are some on the more moderate right (ie the Conservatives) who make similar claims to being representative of the “common man” rather than a Labour party they characterise as “out of touch”.
>Daveyp, John Barnes, et al. History is not inherently progressive. Nor is it inherently a law of decline.
The Islamic worlds decline seems to be a result of religious authorities gaining presendent over secular authorities. Europe’s rise, on the other hand, is largely linked to the sidelining of the Roman Catholic church and eventually the Enlightenment which advanced the rise of secularism. Something Mad Mel et al might like to take on board: religion leads to ruin.
Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our people back to work and ending the waste and injustice of having more than 4 million people in a hidden army of the unemployed concealed by Labour’s statistical fiddles. We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore our economy and land to British ownership. We also call for preference in the job market to be given to native Britons. We will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants. Finally we will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes”
>Daveyp, John Barnes, et al. History is not inherently progressive. Nor is it inherently a law of decline.
The Islamic worlds decline seems to be a result of religious authorities gaining presendent over secular authorities. Europe’s rise, on the other hand, is largely linked to the sidelining of the Roman Catholic church and eventually the Enlightenment which advanced the rise of secularism. Something Mad Mel et al might like to take on board: religion leads to ruin.
Sure. But that doesn’t entail a law of progression.
Not to me (assuming you mean Leftwing), notice the emphasis on “British” and the scowling at “foreign”. This isn’t leftist internationalism, it’s “me-first” nationalism but a type which distinctly appeals to the white working-class, not the moneyed middle class. There’s always been an aspect of this in fascist politics, something the radical left tend to want to ignore which is precisely why fascists feed so easily off their own failings. A typical Marxist rhetoric about fascism is that it “offers nothing” to the white working class. That’s not really true, the working-class are as capable of being selfish and sealing other people out as any other class, something a lot of Marxists don’t seem to acknowledge.
It’s protectionist, yes. But this isn’t about fairness and making sure everyone’s better off; it’s about battering down the hatches, keeping poorer people out and holding onto what we have. It’s standard far-right nationalism – look after the British and fuck everyone else; there’s nothing leftwing about that.
>Sure. But that doesn’t entail a law of progression.
Of course it doesn’t, that would be simplistic. But the enlightenment powered both scientific and social change by allowing the “permanent” dogmas of the Church to be challenged. Before the power of the Church was reduced, scientists were allowed to invent things for both state and social benefit but they found it hard to delve into the “why” because of the dangers of clashing with Church teachings, a danger which came all too easily. Post-enlightenment, it became possible for the likes of Darwin to pursue their theories because there was no Inquisition waiting to torture them if they tried. As a result of this, scientific development accelerated and living conditions improved as a result. Social developments happened for similar reasons: once Martin Luther challenged the Established Church anything became up for question. It’s almost certainly no co-incidence that the first rumblings against the authority of monarchy happened in post-reformation countries.
Incidentally, classical fascist economic thinking has always been based on “national syndicalism” an idea born out of the last economic slump which is designed to prevent class conflict by “uniting” ownership, management and labour. The BNP are a pretty unreconstructed fascist party (a lot of continental far-right parties have moved to a more market-based ideology although I expect that to change in the next couple of years) and their economic ideas reflect that. The paragraph you cite sounds like typical classical fascist economic doctrine to me (there’s no demand that “the people” seize control of anything, merely that industry be “British owned” and that workers have a stake in their companies – typical national syndicalism), albeit with more of an ethnic emphasis.
Zagrebo…’religion leads to ruin’. Really? Well now, the atheist states that I know of have not exactly been fun places. Albania under Enver Hoxha, North Korea under Sung and son. I know of no society that has consciously rejected religion and been a nice place to live. And atheist rulers like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been mass murderers. (Hitler believed in some kind of providence so wasn’t an atheist in the strict sense of the word). Atheism does NOT make the world a better place!
enforcing belief of any kind doesn’t make the world a better place, no one here has tried to suggest otherwise (least of all zagrebo you’ve pulled the quote from the wrong poster there). a secular society is not an atheist one, its simply a framework which does not take sides, allowing all belief systems to exist within it. (not that it was stalins or any of your other examples atheism which made them kill people, that woul be their being massive cock ends, and twattery has always been an equel oppertunity employer.)
“Zagrebo…’religion leads to ruin’. Really? Well now, the atheist states that I know of have not exactly been fun places. Albania under Enver Hoxha, North Korea under Sung and son. I know of no society that has consciously rejected religion and been a nice place to live. And atheist rulers like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot have been mass murderers. (Hitler believed in some kind of providence so wasn’t an atheist in the strict sense of the word). Atheism does NOT make the world a better place!”
Those societies you cite were not atheist by choice (or, in fact, atheist at all – religious belief continued). They had it forced on them by Marxist-Leninists who have more in common with Islamists and Falangists than they’d care to believe. And it wasn’t atheism that brought those states low but totalitarianism and unworkable economic ideas.
Also, my point was that religion damages progress, which it does. Europe didn’t advance by stamping-out religion but by consigning it to personal choice and removing its talons from the state which is what it used to do most of its mischief. With religion consigned to personal choice (something the American revolutionaries understood best – it’s part of their constitution) it wasn’t possible to prosecute “heretics” and so scientific and social advances became possible. Religion was still a problem – especially with regard to social advances, but it no longer held sway over the direction of the state. You don’t need to destroy or do-away with religion to make a society prosperous and free – indeed if you actively persecute it it ceases to become a free society (most atheists I’ve met believe in freedom of religion and the freedom to challenge and ridicule the beliefs of others) but you do need to keep it as a matter of personal choice, not a matter of public policy.
“Sarah – it sounds like a national socialism (loth as I am to simply refer to Nazis so swiftly), or indeed, traits of Stalinist socialism. Just without the socialist bit.”
It sounds a lot like “National Socialism” because it’s fascist economic doctrine. And, like the Nazis, the BNP aren’t actually opposed to private ownership or capitalism per se, just when it hurts the “national interest” (ie white British people). For that reason you can’t really say it’s “the same as” socialism (meaning the leftwing variant). I’ve not met many socialists who are cool with private ownership and capitalism as long as whitey’s okay.
And Stalinism was simply a more brutal version of Leninism. Unlike the BNP. he wouldn’t have any time for “ownership” of property, Russian or otherwise, and he’d have scoffed at the idea of workers merely having a “share” of profits in a company. Leninism was about the “people” (ie the soviet-controlled state) owning absolutely everything. There weren’t any owners and (in theory at least) no real management. And, far more importantly, this was supposed to be a system that was meant to spread beyond borders – all workers of the world uniting and all of that. Very, very different to Griffin and co’s “keep em out and look after number one” mentality.
John Barnes & daveyp – if it’s evidence which you require then please pick up a rather weighty tome called ‘Ideas’ written by Peter Watson. It’ll leave you in jaw-dropping awe at the massive intellectual leaps made by the people of Mesopotamia (southern Iraq), a place which is rightly called ‘The Cradle Of Civilisation.’
The Sumerians were first with wheeled transport, writing, astronomy, arithmetic, law courts, libraries, jails as well as massive advances in agriculture. They were also knocking around for about 4,000 years until the rise of Babylon.
Of course the modern age is one where white westerners appear to dominate but to suggest that this is because ‘Islamics’ are genetically inferior is an idea right up there with Hollow Earth Theory.
“Blue moon- i totally agree, people claiming non- science to be science must be challenged. As a biomedical researcher i find the comments by ex-soldier very annoying, and the tone he has written them is also patronising and offencive. Anyone who wants to get a better idea of how to interpret science results should read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre- great book
Also, i don’t have a lot of time on my hads so probably will not get a chance to respond to an offensive rant by ex-soldier, but please realise that I am a researching scientist and am very concerned about the general misrepresentaion of science in the media.”
Erm, why would you expect an offensive rant? Maybe if I’d used a different username, you wouldn’t have expected an offensive rant? Also, not sure if you mean I’m claiming non-science to be science, I’m not. It is MY VIEW that some academics wouldn’t pursue unpopular areas of research & there some unpopular findings would not be accepted for submission. I didn’t want to pursue some research involving ECT (electro convulsive therapy), because I FELT that because it is such an emotional topic, it might bias future interviewers about me.
Sorry if MY VIEW offends & annoys you (though I would have thought a researcher would be used to criticism? & wouldn’t life be boring if we all thought the same?), but a few exchanges on an annonymous forum is not about to change it… I also doubt my posts will anybody elses opinion – which is not really an issue – most adults can agree to disagree. Although out of interest, have you also formed an opion about my academic background based on my username?
@Bluemoon – reference the not quiet reaching significance Bluemoon it was less than 0.09 – which he actually did not want – this was gained using a very robust neuroimaging technque. So you could argue that 0.09 in a study using a robust methodology is more accurate than a study with a weakish methodology that has a p value of 0.04. But, there was clear evidence of a trend in a visual analysis, too. Which, in my view is one of the benefits of visual analysis, because it can be more sensitive compared to statistical analysis (prepared to accept incoming here!).
Although I just have to state here – I (& neither does the person who run study) do not believe in ESP! The only reason I mentioned the study in the first place was because it was an example of research that could be followed up, but he doesn’t want to – mainly because onlyrecently he published some very contraversial research in a prestigious weekly journal – which many suggested (in response letters) shouldn’t have been published.
“Erm, why would you expect an offensive rant? Maybe if I’d used a different username, you wouldn’t have expected an offensive rant?
Although out of interest, have you also formed an opion about my academic background based on my username?”
zoe didn’t mention your username, so these seem odd questions to ask. though as for why she may have expected something offensive, i think that can be pinned down to your way of adressing people earlier in this thread, eg:
“If you don’t understand that results not meeting 0.05 can still have important implications, I’m guessing you’ve not yet graduated”
…which could fairly be seen as patronising, and/or intended to offend.
“Basically, from what you have written, it seems a study into ESP was done. It found no positive results. This is hardly surprising, so it probably doesn’t merit publication. The only argument I see for publication is that as a negative result, it might make people more sceptical of the few studies which (by chance or malpractice) show evidence for ESP**.:
Actually, I’ve just seen something written in a department newsletter from late last year – he’s planning on pursuing this in the future, but it’s really not my place to post details of his name & research – especially as I’m indirectly close to the guy. I will say though, that seeing neuroimaging data suggestive of cortical activity during a task where individuals were communicating symbols to each other, for me at least, was actually pretty exciting – even though I don’t actually believe in ESP.
Zagrego – I referred to ‘traits of Stalinism’ in the sense that it explicitly deals with somewhat socialist matters, but in a purely national context. The intention is of course, very different. It’s not exactly the core of an argument, but it’s just a sort of warped similarity.
As for the religion/progressive thing, we’re arguing two different points. I agree with you pointing out the trends of anti-authority arriving in post-reformation states, and you with that this is not necessarily a law. It could all turn around in the future, and the modern world has been riven with non-religious horror – one could construe your wording as incorporating some kind of modernisation theory, which I’d be hesistant to attribute to you outright as it is.
*Edit to Stalinism. The reason I referred to Stalin in particular is that the internationalism of Socialism disappeared to a great extent. The Second World War was not the ‘Worker’s War’ or anytthing, it was the ‘Great Patriotic War’. Soviet Nationalism of a peculiar kind arose in the 1930s/40s, internationalism was cut away with the dissolution of the Comintern and the distancing of officials from people.