Free speech.

**oldrider** · 6th August 2018, 12:49

This thread appears to be revealing more about NZ social ignorance than anything else.

**TheDemonLord** · 6th August 2018, 13:06

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Proof?

Maybe it was all those other genes they've picked up along the way ..

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6028960600033X

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/document...jbiosocsci.pdf

https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/mor...issier20110719

There you go.

Now, I'm not going to make a claim as to the hows or the whys (but in the 2nd link, there are some interesting ideas) but it does seem to be conclusive that on average - they are 'the smartest'.

The inferred point I was making is suppose that a group is found to have the highest IQ - why is that offensive?

Now, I'll grant that data points like that are often used to bolster an argument of racial superiority (whilst I flirt with Godwin) - and I could agree on why that was offensive, but the data itself is just that - data.

**Moi** · 6th August 2018, 14:07

I'm sorry that the Canadians were unable to speak to those who wished to pay to hear them. Those who wished to attend their presentation have as much right to do so as those who wish to peacefully protest their presence.

There appeared to be no reason to stop them entering the country.

However, I can understand the apprehension that a venue owner may well have if renting their venue to them. I doubt if those attending the presentation are the ones who would bring apprehension to the venue owner, I suspect that the protest that such a presentation draws would be reason for apprehension.

The venue owner must be responsible for the safety of their staff - doesn't OSH cover that aspect? - and with the possible protest not remaining peaceful, what guarantee can a venue owner give to their staff that they will be safe?

As an Auckland ratepayer I was disappointed in the way the council handled the non-hiring of a venue. If the reason given had been that the council could not guarantee the safety of their staff or that of those attending, then to not hold the presentation in a council controlled venue is acceptable. However, the message that appeared from council was not so much the safety issue as rather the issue that council doesn't like what the Canadians are saying.

As for the protesters, they were not portrayed as peaceful and responsible. They appeared to be more of the angry mob variety of protesters and no doubt this caused the police some concern. They appeared to be set upon disrupting the presentation rather than being prepared to put up a strong position against what is being said.

If those who are opposed to what the Canadians are saying are genuinely concerned that the message must be critiqued, then they should have invited the Canadians to a debate about their views. A debate that is controlled and tempered so that all get to present their views to an audience who are prepared to listen to both sides, even if some in the audience find what is presented by one side to be unpleasant.

Perhaps the offensive-ness that some said they felt towards what the Canadians are saying could also be felt towards the protesters who removed the lawful right for a citizens of this country to attend a meeting that they had paid to attend.

**Graystone** · 6th August 2018, 17:47

Originally Posted by HenryDorsetCase

sorry I didnt express that very well. But that "they" are outbreeding "us" argument was one of the arguments advanced by the Nazis for the Final solution. Hence my reference to Godwin.

And I dont see that clunge Southern and/or Molyneux as being very different from Nazis personally. But I am a well known wet liberal socialist.

While I wouldn't go so far as the Godwin's Law, birth rates tend towards distinction by ethnicity rather than culture. It seems a little strange they are from Canada complaining about preservation of culture as well, it's a country known for a strong culture derived from the culture of its immigrants.

**HenryDorsetCase** · 6th August 2018, 17:55

Originally Posted by Moi

I'm sorry that the Canadians were unable to speak to those who wished to pay to hear them. T

I'm not. fuck those clowns.

**carbonhed** · 6th August 2018, 18:06

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

There you go.

Now, I'm not going to make a claim as to the hows or the whys (but in the 2nd link, there are some interesting ideas) but it does seem to be conclusive that on average - they are 'the smartest'.

The inferred point I was making is suppose that a group is found to have the highest IQ - why is that offensive?

Now, I'll grant that data points like that are often used to bolster an argument of racial superiority (whilst I flirt with Godwin) - and I could agree on why that was offensive, but the data itself is just that - data.

There's an interesting discussion on IQ and identity politics between Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson here........... from 8:33.

**husaberg** · 6th August 2018, 18:21

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6028960600033X

http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/document...jbiosocsci.pdf

https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/mor...issier20110719

There you go.

Now, I'm not going to make a claim as to the hows or the whys (but in the 2nd link, there are some interesting ideas) but it does seem to be conclusive that on average - they are 'the smartest'.

The inferred point I was making is suppose that a group is found to have the highest IQ - why is that offensive?

Now, I'll grant that data points like that are often used to bolster an argument of racial superiority (whilst I flirt with Godwin) - and I could agree on why that was offensive, but the data itself is just that - data.

its not offensive but it can be used in a way that it is, it also doesn't include the factors that effect the iq test results the fylnn effect for instance.
Nor does it show there is a great range of IQ in a group of random people then there is in a race
When the worlds IQ experts disagree with its use like that, who are you to say they know better than they do.

One of the world's leading experts on intelligence says no one should listen to anything Stefan Molyneux has to say on the topic.
But not necessarily because he's wrong.
Emeritus Professor James Flynn of the University of Otago has published a number of books and papers on intelligence, what it is, and what's behind it. He's best-known internationally for the 'Flynn effect' - the gradual improvement in intelligence - as measured in IQ tests - that occurred throughout the 20th century.
Most researchers now say the evidence strongly favours environmental factors - the Flynn effect itself has been linked to improved pre- and post-natal nutrition and better education, for example, as well as the growing complexity of life.Rather than give the pair publicity by opposing their presence - as some have accused Auckland Mayor Phil Goff of doing - Prof Flynn says we all should have just ignored them.
One of the world's leading experts on intelligence says no one should listen to anything Stefan Molyneux has to say on the topic.
But not necessarily because he's wrong.
Emeritus Professor James Flynn of the University of Otago has published a number of books and papers on intelligence, what it is, and what's behind it. He's best-known internationally for the 'Flynn effect' - the gradual improvement in intelligence - as measured in IQ tests - that occurred throughout the 20th century.
Mr Molyneux argues there is a racial link to intelligence, with a hierarchy that puts Ashkenazi Jews at the top, African-Americans, sub-Saharan Africans, pygmys and indigenous Australians at the bottom, and the rest of us somewhere in between.
Mr Molyneux says while he doesn't like that different races have different levels of intelligence, it's what the research says, citing work by the likes of Prof Flynn and Charles Murray. The latter published a book in 1994 called The Bell Curve, which presented evidence of IQ differences between the different races. While it didn't flat-out say the differences were the result of genetics, in promotion for the book Dr Murray said it was likely.
Prof Flynn was interviewed by Mr Molyneux in 2015 - the hour-long chat is on YouTube - but said if the Canadian called now, he wouldn't answer.
"I wouldn't think of going within a mile of him if he talked," Prof Flynn told Newshub, saying while he enjoyed debating the subject of race and IQ with academics he disagreed with, such as Dr Murray and the late Arthur Jensen, there was no point in listening to what Mr Molyneux has to say.
"These people are just coattail-hangers. They don't have anything new to contribute to the debate - they just try and make the debate spectacular. I've invested a huge amount of time on this issue, read all the best thinkers, and wouldn't think it would be worth my time."
In his 1980 book Race, IQ and Jensen, Prof Flynn called attempts to link IQ squarely to race "disturbing", expressing great scepticism.
Most researchers now say the evidence strongly favours environmental factors - the Flynn effect itself has been linked to improved pre- and post-natal nutrition and better education, for example, as well as the growing complexity of life.
Prof Flynn couldn't recall anything Mr Molyneux told him in 2015, but doubts the interview would be worth revisiting.
"I've never seen him in the literature as having made any supplementary points to the points Jensen made, and his reputation is such that one suspects he oversimplifies the debate. You have a limited amount of time in your life, and if you look at what every nut says about every issue, you'll never have time to do anything else."
But that doesn't mean he agrees with Mr Molyneux and Ms Southern being hounded out of the country.
"This clown is coming here and if he speaks in Auckland he'll get about 50 people, all of whom agree with him anyway, and best to ignore him. But no, all sorts of people become champions of anti-racism and they get huge publicity."

**carbonhed** · 6th August 2018, 19:06

Professor Flynn said "This clown is coming here and if he speaks in Auckland he'll get about 50 people, all of whom agree with him anyway, and best to ignore him. But no, all sorts of people become champions of anti-racism and they get huge publicity."

This is the wonderful irony in the spectacle of the regressive left all lining up to pat each other on the back over the triumph of the cancellation of Southern and Molyneux's talk.

If they had done absolutely nothing... the talk would have gone ahead to a tiny handful of people and then they would have departed our shores.

Instead we get the spectacle of the mayor of Auckland lying about his actions and confirmation of that by his own council.

You get the Auckland city council banning the event due to "Elf and Safety" which will no doubt backfire on them.

You get rent a mob demonstrating their intolerance of free speech in front of the entire nation.

You get Southern and Molyneux making one of New Zealand's top journalists look like a complete muppet. Way to go Paddy Gower! And they seem pretty rational on national TV.

You get the cherry on top with our own fucking Prime Minister bobble head approving the cancellation of the speech.

Aaaaand you'll get the speech anyway on Youtube.

Way to fucking go Leftards

:

This has already got about 150000 views. Bravo! Outstanding! May you have many such triumphs!

**Graystone** · 6th August 2018, 19:38

Originally Posted by carbonhed

You get rent a mob demonstrating their intolerance of free speech in front of the entire nation.

Ahem, actually we got a group demonstrating their right to free speech.

And a pair having a whinge cos they couldn't be arsed doing the same.

The people who think NZ looks bad due to these fool's (in)actions are unlikely to be the sort of people we would like to have come visit anyway. Win-win.

**FJRider** · 6th August 2018, 20:05

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

Or.... There is a long history of radical left-wing activists/domestic terrorist groups using force to shut down speakers they don't like. A Venue gives some ability to exclude those who want to violently protest.

Preaching to the believers is the easiest option with "Public" speaking. Safer too ... if you know many oppose what you are preaching ...

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

As opposed to peacefully protest and even come to the event to ask questions and challenge the speakers...

BUT ... BOTH sides can't agree on the definition of peaceful ... and both groups can't/wont ... keep it peaceful.

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

Also - what is the legal standard for offense or offended? Is there a threshold? Or is it simply a case of get enough people with tears streaming down their face, claiming PTSD from Twitter?

For a start ... a complaint must be made to Police before any action can be taken. Proof of what actions caused the offence and (as I understand) reasonable cause and/or proof that any actual offence was taken. But I'm no Lawyer ... do your own research.