Battle of ideas

http://archive.is/3qsTD

It is funny, because when kraut was reading his first altright book, it was clear he was lying about the contents or it was otherwise going over his head. He claimed the author's praise of homogeneity was utopian, when homogeneity has existed and is possible to achieve forthe most part. Or he said the author was using Marxist logic when no dialectical framework was ever presented. The author just said something was bad and it's antithesis was good, which isn't the same thing. Or when Kraut began looking into race realism, reading an author's opinion in the abstract of a study on race and IQ as if it had any bearing on the study's results. The author said the reduction of other environmental factors would remove the gap, after finding the reduction of the factors they were studying didn't do anything to the racial gaps.

This is actually as good a time as any to explain why I left the skeptic community for the altright. It is the arrogant pretense that you hold any intellectual upper hand. Whenever they can get one of you to even agree to debate, or otherwise engage in any battle of ideas with someone even remotely competent, you lose. And it was very clear you guys lie about what they think to make it al seem irrational when it isn't. Usually by claiming they can't prove something they absolutely can (poverty is why there is an IQ gap springs to mind, among other bogus objections which aren't even controversially to see as bogus)