In either case he clearly lacks the kind of dispassionate critical intelligence that is needed to discharge his responsibilities as a moderator of comment on a philosophy forum.

In either case he clearly lacks the kind of dispassionate critical intelligence that is needed to discharge his responsibilities as a moderator of comment on a philosophy forum. — John Gould

That is without a shred of doubt.

hereby call upon him to either defend the charge immediately or to have the moral integrity to do the honourable thing and surrender his position as a moderator on this forum forthwith. — John Gould

I doubt he'll do either. Which is quite unfortunate, because I don't think he's actually a stupid person. He's just stubborn on certain issues that seem to affect him emotionally.

Well, this is a rather incompetent attempt at character assassination. You need to up your game, fellas. Anyway, regarding the objectionable content, @John Gould, what we need from you is an immediate stop to your repeated postings of stuff we asked you not to post. Otherwise, immediate ban.

Edit: As I've now been informed John Gould was warned of a banning by another moderator on the same issue 25 days ago, he has now been banned.

Well, this is a rather incompetent attempt at character assassination. — Baden

It's not meant to be a character assassination, it's just a fact that one of the moderators has an emotional bias (very likely due to an overindulgence in POMO literature) which doesn't permit him to make adequate (meaning rational) judgements with regards to issues that are sensitive to him. This is something that should be discussed. But to the contrary, the said moderator refuses to discuss the issue and says that it's "below him".

Now can I please have an answer to my question here:

Are biological differences between the races racist? :s To me, racism would be a certain type of ideology that encourages active discrimination, not just a look at biological differences between races. — Agustino

Are biological differences between the races racist? — Agustino

No. That's not the issue. The issue has been explained. Streetlight X provided an enumerated standard which, as the site staff agree, was not adhered to.

But to the contrary, the said moderator refuses to discuss the issue... — Agustino

There's nothing to discuss with anyone who consistently puts into question not what I say, but the (apparent, projected) reasons for my saying things (I'm 'emotional', 'stubborn', 'overindulges in POMO literature', etc). It's the lowest, most despicable form of argument, peddled only by those equal to it.

Streetlight X provided an enumerated standard which, as the site staff agree, was not adhered to. — Sapientia

(1) it cited no sources, (2) it did not acknowledge the contentiousness of regarding IQ as a purely heritable trait, (3) it did not acknowledge the debates regarding the specificity of IQ as a measurement of intelligence, and (4) it's polemic tone was not suitable for a topic that deserves to be - if at all - treated with extreme nuance. — StreetlightX

Okay, (1) is sensible, but (2), (3), and (4) seems over the top. I don't see why the post would have had to "acknowledge the contentiousness of regarding IQ as a purely heritable trait" - if this is precisely what was under discussion. (2), (3), and (4) are issues that would have had to be discussed in the debate.

The main point is that SLX has proven - for example in his debate with me with regards to testosterone - that he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to face up to certain issues.

There's nothing to discuss with anyone who consistently puts into question not what I say, but the fact that I am the one saying it (I'm 'emotional', 'overindulges in POMO literature', etc). — StreetlightX

I don't believe in our debate with regards to testosterone I put into question the fact that YOU are saying it. The problem would have been there regardless of who said it.