Jordan Peterson

[jakee 1,255]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

To be honest, I was more interested in his views on the gender pay gap, equality of opportunity vs opportunity of outcome, hierarchy, identity politics and personal responsibility.  
 

And yet even when clearly prompted for more information, and even when some of those issues were mentioned, you couldn’t be bothered to contribute anything. 

 

Cant really see where you have any standing to moan that people aren’t talking about what you wanted to talk about. Because it doesn’t look like you wanted to talk about anything.

[brenthutch 383]

No big deal, I wasn’t stirring the pot (this time), I just thought he is an interesting person with some compelling arguments.

[jakee 1,255]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No big deal, I wasn’t stirring the pot (this time), I just thought he is an interesting person with some compelling arguments.

So why didn’t you say anything about them? Cos it honestly seems like the only reason you started this thread was to come back 6 weeks later and say ‘Gotcha!’

[mistercwood 287]

I'll confess up front that I haven't yet had the time to watch any of his talks, and I'll need to do that to have a properly informed opinion about the man.

I did pick up one of his books in the shops the other day and had a quick skim through, my primary takeaway was "That's a hell of a lot of words to say 'I'm important and smart, pay ATTENTION to me!!!'".

The fact that a huge portion of his fanbase are incels also tells me a good amount about the kind of "philosophies" he'll be spouting. But as I said, for a fully informed opinion I'll need to take some time to listen/read more than what I have.

[NewGuy2005 51]

2 hours ago, mistercwood said:

I'll confess up front that I haven't yet had the time to watch any of his talks, and I'll need to do that to have a properly informed opinion about the man.

I did pick up one of his books in the shops the other day and had a quick skim through, my primary takeaway was "That's a hell of a lot of words to say 'I'm important and smart, pay ATTENTION to me!!!'".

The fact that a huge portion of his fanbase are incels also tells me a good amount about the kind of "philosophies" he'll be spouting. But as I said, for a fully informed opinion I'll need to take some time to listen/read more than what I have.

I hate to jump back into this, but I've got to tell you that if that is what you think, you are really missing it.

With regards to incels, specifically, I doubt if very many of them, if any, are part of his fan base.  He repeatedly has said that they  aren't getting laid because they're pathetic.  I don't think that's how you build a fan base.

This has been quite an education for me.  I underestimated the degree to which people will parrot what they have been told to think about someone.  Like I said earlier, I no longer listen to him, but I've listened to him enough to recognize that there are a lot of people here talking out or their asses.

Edited August 17, 2019 by NewGuy2005

[sundevil777 93]

On 8/12/2019 at 7:07 AM, wmw999 said:

Without having read or listened to anything about him outside of this thread, I’d say that at the very least he sounds arrogant. What stranger gets to judge what someone needs better than that person does? And if politeness is too big a burden for him to bear, then maybe the moniker “dick” would work for him.  Because, after all, I get to choose what i call him, too, right?

 

Of course you get to call him what you want in the USA, if you mean what pronoun to apply. In Canada you don't have that freedom. As you have a strong preference for the freedom to call him what you want, then thank you for your support of Dr. Peterson's position.

Strangers in socialist governments get to decide what an individual needs much more than governments where Liberty dominates. Thank you again for arguing in favor of Dr. Peterson's position.

As Peterson has said, the issue is not about politeness. The left wants us to believe it is, but that is not true.

Edited August 18, 2019 by sundevil777

[sundevil777 93]

It seems that criticism in this thread of Dr. Peterson is not on the substance of his positions, but instead his style/personality.

A Prager U video from Dr. Peterson on post-modernism:

https://www.prageru.com/video/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids/

[mistercwood 287]

2 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

It seems that criticism in this thread of Dr. Peterson is not on the substance of his positions, but instead his style/personality.

A Prager U video from Dr. Peterson on post-modernism:

https://www.prageru.com/video/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids/

His style/personality guides the spin he uses to make his positions. I have a problem with almost any "true believer", which he most certainly is. Anyone whose approach is "this is how things are, if you don't agree then you're an idiot" - which is a constant thread I've seen in most of his talks and writing - isn't acting in good faith.

Secondly, PragerU are hacks. I know, I know, don't attack the source, but sorry they're not credible in any way shape or form.

[sundevil777 93]

9 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

His style/personality guides the spin he uses to make his positions. I have a problem with almost any "true believer", which he most certainly is. Anyone whose approach is "this is how things are, if you don't agree then you're an idiot" - which is a constant thread I've seen in most of his talks and writing - isn't acting in good faith.

Secondly, PragerU are hacks. I know, I know, don't attack the source, but sorry they're not credible in any way shape or form.

I understand you don't like his personality. Where exactly is he making the, "...then you're an idiot" assertion?  There are issues where that type of assertion is justified, but why aren't you arguing against his assertion of how things are? The only argument you appear to be making is an appeal to emotion. Peterson will assert that there is a lot of evidence within his field of expertise to support his conclusions. He does this with the great confidence that is irritating to the left, but it is not what you accuse him of doing.

Your second paragraph is largely doing what you don't like to be done as you describe in your first paragraph. It would be less so if you had any specific argument on the points of his video.

 

[gowlerk 1,914]

4 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

It seems that criticism in this thread of Dr. Peterson is not on the substance of his positions, but instead his style/personality.

A Prager U video from Dr. Peterson on post-modernism:

https://www.prageru.com/video/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids/

Dr. Peterson? First time I have heard him referred to by that title. Did he get a Doctorate from PragerU?

[sundevil777 93]

No, he got his doctorate from McGill University.

If you are left with making fun of Prager U for not being a real university, you got nothing.

Person 1: "What do you think of this Prager U video?"

Person 2: "It doesn't matter, they aren't actually a university, so nothing they say can be trusted"

Person 1: "Of course they're not a real university, they aren't trying to deceive anyone with that label. Do you have anything to argue against their assertions?"

Person 2: "I don't like his personality."

[brenthutch 383]

5 hours ago, mistercwood said:

His style/personality guides the spin he uses to make his positions. I have a problem with almost any "true believer", which he most certainly is. Anyone whose approach is "this is how things are, if you don't agree then you're an idiot" - which is a constant thread I've seen in most of his talks and writing - isn't acting in good faith.

Secondly, PragerU are hacks. I know, I know, don't attack the source, but sorry they're not credible in any way shape or form.

Yes if someone says that two plus two equals four, in a way it offends your sensibilities, it must be wrong. 

 

LOL, PragerU are hacks but I lack the intellect to form a cogent argument against them.  I must resort ad hominem attacks.

[brenthutch 383]

5 hours ago, mistercwood said:

His style/personality guides the spin he uses to make his positions. I have a problem with almost any "true believer", which he most certainly is. Anyone whose approach is "this is how things are, if you don't agree then you're an idiot" - which is a constant thread I've seen in most of his talks and writing - isn't acting in good faith.

Secondly, PragerU are hacks. I know, I know, don't attack the source, but sorry they're not credible in any way shape or form.

Yes if someone says that two plus two equals four, in a way it offends your sensibilities, it must be wrong. 

 

LOL, "PragerU  are hacks but I lack the intellect to form a cogent argument against them.  I must resort ad hominem attacks." 

Edited August 19, 2019 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 1,914]

4 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

No, he got his doctorate from McGill University.

If you are left with making fun of Prager U for not being a real university, you got nothing.

Person 1: "What do you think of this Prager U video?"

Person 2: "It doesn't matter, they aren't actually a university, so nothing they say can be trusted"

Person 1: "Of course they're not a real university, they aren't trying to deceive anyone with that label. Do you have anything to argue against their assertions?"

Person 2: "I don't like his personality."

You're right. I have nothing. I just mentioned that I've never heard his name mentioned with that title. "Prager U" is agenda driven. I still know nothing about Peterson, and I don't care to find anything out about him. I did bother to look into Prager U. If they are promoting him that would be a strike against him. Apparently he is worried and trying to worry others about a new danger called "neo-Marxist professors". 'Nuff said right there. But you can donate, right there on the page you linked. Go for it, sucker.

[mbohu 77]

For anyone who IS interested in him, here are 2 interesting links. The first one is an interview from someone who sees Peterson in a quite positive light, but doesn't come from the political corner that most indicate here that his supporters would be limited to:
(Peterson himself appears around 5:50 into it, if you're the impatient or busy type)

The second is coming from someone who clearly doesn't like Peterson. I think the host of this show is tremendously annoying, and it may be better to watch the original interview with Joe Rogan (who is much less so--actually quite the opposite, I find) but if you can get through the annoying bits, he has a really good point about Peterson's philosophy sometimes contradicting itself very much:

 

So: He's very much a mixed bag, I would say.

[gowlerk 1,914]

As usual Wikipedia comes to the rescue. It has a page that sums up both Peterson's career and the controversy he is involved in. If, like me, someone wanted to have an idea about this without watching endless boring videos of his polemics and what others think of him, just read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

The most notable thing I took is that the man is worried that masculinity is being undermined in western society by feminism. Give me a break.

Edited August 19, 2019 by gowlerk

[sundevil777 93]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

As usual Wikipedia comes to the rescue. It has a page that sums up both Peterson's career and the controversy he is involved in. If, like me, someone wanted to have an idea about this without watching endless boring videos of his polemics and what others think of him, just read this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

The most notable thing I took is that the man is worried that masculinity is being undermined in western society by feminism. Give me a break.

It is likely you were looking at this paragraph from wikipedia page:

Peterson has argued that there is an ongoing "crisis of masculinity" and "backlash against masculinity" where the "masculine spirit is under assault".^{[20][121][122][123]} He has argued that feminism and policies such as no-fault divorce have had adverse effects on gender relations and destabilized society.^[121] He has argued that the existing societal hierarchy that the "left" has characterised as an "oppressive patriarchy" might "be predicated on competence."^[20] Peterson has said that men without partners are likely to become violent, and has noted that "enforced monogamy", i.e. societies wherein monogamy is a social norm, decrease male violence.^[20][121] He has attributed the rise of Donald Trump and far-right European politicians to what he says is a push to "feminize" men, saying "If men are pushed too hard to feminize they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology."^[124] He attracted considerable attention over a 2018 Channel 4 interview where he clashed with interviewer Cathy Newman on the topic of the gender pay gap.^[125][126] Peterson disputed that the gender pay gap was solely due to sexual discrimination.^{[126][127][128]} Writing for The New York Times, Nellie Bowles said that most of Peterson's ideas "stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender".

What part of this causes you grief? Even as you summarized it in your post that I quoted above, what about that statement is unreasonable (your "give me a break" dismissal of Peterson).

I think the last sentence in the paragraph from wikipedia is really awful, "that most of Peterson's ideas "stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender". Assigning motives like that is lousy, and some nasty comment that can't be supported like that should not be in a person's summary on Wiki.

The reason you might find his videos boring is that he isn't out there just to get attention, he isn't flashy or loud. He is boring because he explains why he holds his positions and why those positions are justified. He does it in a way that is hard to argue against, except to say he belongs in the basket of deplorables.

Consider near the end of the referenced wiki paragraph, "Peterson disputed that the gender pay gap was solely due to sexual discrimination."  Why should this be controversial? To think it is solely, or even mostly due to sexual discrimination is what should be condemned. Peterson has said (in one of the videos I linked earlier) research shows about 5% of the gap is due to it.

Some think the "hot button" issue against Dr. Peterson is the gender pronouns issue. I agree with his stance, it should not be required by law. So many times I've heard that you can't legislate morality. Why do so many think that politeness should be legislated?

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by sundevil777

[billvon 2,400]

22 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

It is likely you were looking at this paragraph from wikipedia page:

Peterson has argued that there is an ongoing "crisis of masculinity" and "backlash against masculinity" where the "masculine spirit is under assault".^{[20][121][122][123]} He has argued that feminism and policies such as no-fault divorce have had adverse effects on gender relations and destabilized society.^[121] He has argued that the existing societal hierarchy that the "left" has characterised as an "oppressive patriarchy" might "be predicated on competence."^[20] Peterson has said that men without partners are likely to become violent, and has noted that "enforced monogamy", i.e. societies wherein monogamy is a social norm, decrease male violence.^[20][121] He has attributed the rise of Donald Trump and far-right European politicians to what he says is a push to "feminize" men, saying "If men are pushed too hard to feminize they will become more and more interested in harsh, fascist political ideology."^[124] He attracted considerable attention over a 2018 Channel 4 interview where he clashed with interviewer Cathy Newman on the topic of the gender pay gap.^[125][126] Peterson disputed that the gender pay gap was solely due to sexual discrimination.^{[126][127][128]} Writing for The New York Times, Nellie Bowles said that most of Peterson's ideas "stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender".

What part of this causes you grief?

None of them cause me grief.  I disagree with many of them.

There "masculine spirit is under assault" is just plain silly.  No one is attacking anyone's "spirit."  People _are_ attacking (rightly) the sort of toxic masculinity that results in sexual assault and rape, and that often results in the entitlement of the incel - the idea that men are entitled to women's attentions, and if they don't get that attention, they have been wronged.

Justifying patriarchy by saying it is predicated on competence is just plain offensive.  I might as well claim that the moderators here are competent, so if you disagree with one, it is likely due to your lack of said competence.

And in that interview he said that careful analysis of the pay gap shows that it doesn't exist.  Then he says it's not due to sex.  He gives an example - "agreeable people get paid less.  Women are more agreeable people, on average.  So they get paid less."  Thus demonstrating it IS due to sex.

[gowlerk 1,914]

45 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

Peterson has argued that there is an ongoing "crisis of masculinity" and "backlash against masculinity" where the "masculine spirit is under assault".^{[20][121][122][123]} He has argued that feminism and policies such as no-fault divorce have had adverse effects on gender relations and destabilized society.^[121]

That right there is offensive enough. I do suppose that if you favour a heavily patriarchal society, then you could argue that giving more power to women is destabilizing. I can live with that sort of destabilizing change even if Peterson finds it to be problematic.

[sundevil777 93]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

There "masculine spirit is under assault" is just plain silly.  No one is attacking anyone's "spirit."  People _are_ attacking (rightly) the sort of toxic masculinity that results in sexual assault and rape, and that often results in the entitlement of the incel - the idea that men are entitled to women's attentions, and if they don't get that attention, they have been wronged. 

You really think that only "the sort of toxic masculinity that results in sexual assault and rape" is being condemned?

Do you think it is possible for feminism to be toxic?

6 hours ago, billvon said:

Justifying patriarchy by saying it is predicated on competence is just plain offensive.  I might as well claim that the moderators here are competent, so if you disagree with one, it is likely due to your lack of said competence.

You got it wrong, in a really major way. He didn't justify patriarchy by saying it is predicated on competence. I'm pretty sure that it was hierarchy, not patriarchy. That is much like when an interviewer says, "So what you're saying is...", then the person being questioned has to say, "No, that is not at all what I just said...".

 

6 hours ago, billvon said:

And in that interview he said that careful analysis of the pay gap shows that it doesn't exist.  Then he says it's not due to sex.  He gives an example - "agreeable people get paid less.  Women are more agreeable people, on average.  So they get paid less."  Thus demonstrating it IS due to sex.

Even if he did say those exact words, he has also repeatedly said that about 5% of the gap is attributable to gender alone, and that there are many other factors that are predictive of pay besides gender. I think when saying the pay gap doesn't exist, he is clearly countering the assertion that the gap is due to gender only. It seems you are intentionally splitting hairs. From the context of the interview, his contention is clear.

Let's imagine a weird scenario where people work at home, and there is no way for their boss to know their gender. This job requires a high degree of agreeability. They only communicate in writing, but are still able to convey their agreeability, or lack thereof in their correspondence. Let's say that their long term raises/pay is then examined versus factors including agreeability, It would be the men that would suffer, but it would be wrong to blame the difference on a bias against men.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, sundevil777 said:

You really think that only "the sort of toxic masculinity that results in sexual assault and rape" is being condemned?

No.  It is one of the major aspects being condemned, but not the only one.

Quote

Do you think it is possible for feminism to be toxic?

Yes. 

Quote

You got it wrong, in a really major way. He didn't justify patriarchy by saying it is predicated on competence

OK.  I posted about the things I disagreed with in your copy-and-paste, as you requested.  If you are now saying "he didn't say that, he said something else" no worries; post what he said and we can discuss that.

Quote

Even if he did say those exact words, he has also repeatedly said that about 5% of the gap is attributable to gender alone, and that there are many other factors that are predictive of pay besides gender.

Right.  Like the fact that women are "more agreeable."  If women are in general more agreeable, and that makes them get paid less, then that's a reason attributable to gender.  He could argue that it is justifiably sexist, but he can't claim it's not sexist - because the discrimination is sex-linked.

Let's take another example.  Let's say Joe runs a car dealership, and he doesn't hire many blacks.  He claims "look, I am NOT RACIST!  I don't usually hire blacks because blacks are provably more lazy, not because of the color of their skin."  Does that statement actually demonstrate that he is not hiring based on race - and that he is not a racist?

 

 

[sundevil777 93]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Quote

Do you think it is possible for feminism to be toxic?

Yes. 

Do you think toxic feminism exists now?

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Quote

You got it wrong, in a really major way. He didn't justify patriarchy by saying it is predicated on competence

OK.  I posted about the things I disagreed with in your copy-and-paste, as you requested.  If you are now saying "he didn't say that, he said something else" no worries; post what he said and we can discuss that.

Please read it again. The wiki article said, " He has argued that the existing societal hierarchy that the "left" has characterised as an "oppressive patriarchy" might "be predicated on competence."  He did not justify oppressive patriarchy, he said that it was a hierarchy. He often talks about how the left characterizes any hierarchy where men dominate as an oppressive patriarchy, but he does not accept that characterization and explains why. Do you see the difference? It is a really big difference, and it is why I said you got it wrong in a really major way.

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Quote

Even if he did say those exact words, he has also repeatedly said that about 5% of the gap is attributable to gender alone, and that there are many other factors that are predictive of pay besides gender.

Right.  Like the fact that women are "more agreeable."  If women are in general more agreeable, and that makes them get paid less, then that's a reason attributable to gender.  He could argue that it is justifiably sexist, but he can't claim it's not sexist - because the discrimination is sex-linked.

I used an example of how it would be wrong for men to claim sexism if they usually don't have the qualities that a job requires. Do you agree?

I think it likely all traits that you might want to consider would have some disparity between the sexes. If true, then all traits are "attributable to gender". Therefore any performance difference (and resulting pay difference) on the job due to the presence/absence of any trait would be "sexist - because the discrimination is sex-linked", correct?  Association doesn't mean causation, and people can improve their agreeableness, or assertiveness. Dr Peterson talks about helping people with that to improve their careers.

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Let's take another example.  Let's say Joe runs a car dealership, and he doesn't hire many blacks.  He claims "look, I am NOT RACIST!  I don't usually hire blacks because blacks are provably more lazy, not because of the color of their skin."  Does that statement actually demonstrate that he is not hiring based on race - and that he is not a racist? 

 

That is a really awful analogy. You can go there without me.

It is provable that men are generally stronger than women. I would not expect many blocklayers to be women. I would not expect the average woman would be able to perform as well as the average man. For blocklayers their perfomance is easily measured, and I would expect the average woman's long term pay/raises would not match the men. I would expect a guy hiring blocklayers to not be biased against a woman that is quite strong, even stronger than the average male blocklayer, and that her performance and pay should reflect that.

It seems like the argument leads to the rejection of a merit-based reward system. What is important is that people be judged upon reasonable traits/measures of performance. If men are less agreeable, I would expect them to not dominate nursing. It doesn't mean the people doing performance evaluations of nurses are biased against men.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by sundevil777

[wmw999 2,123]

7 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

Do you think toxic feminism exists now?

I agree with Bill that it does. Does every single instance of what you (or even I) think of as being toxic feminism have to be eradicated before anyone can discuss what other people think of as being toxic masculinity?

That kind of thought process is up there with "there is no discrimination; there's a rich African-American in Denver." 

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,400]

11 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

Do you think toxic feminism exists now?

Sure.  I've seen it a few times.  It's rare, but it exists.

Quote

Please read it again. The wiki article said, " He has argued that the existing societal hierarchy that the "left" has characterised as an "oppressive patriarchy" might "be predicated on competence."  He did not justify oppressive patriarchy, he said that it was a hierarchy.

Yes.  "Predicated" means "founded on."  So he is claiming that the existing social hierarchy - patriarchy - is founded on competence.  That is offensive.  Men are not more competent than women.

Quote

I think it likely all traits that you might want to consider would have some disparity between the sexes.   If true, then all traits are "attributable to gender". Therefore any performance difference (and resulting pay difference) on the job due to the presence/absence of any trait would be "sexist - because the discrimination is sex-linked", correct?

OK, let's look at that angle.  Yes, there are difference between the sexes.  Some might make a person more employable.  So you claim that that's just natural, and that therefore it's not sexist to hire people with some traits even if that means you hire more than one sex over the other.  Fine.

But this characteristic - "being agreeable" - is a feature that IMPROVES job suitability in most occupations.  (We will exclude prison guards and lawyers from this for the purpose of the argument.)  So you can't say "I am just hiring the best people for the job, and women aren't the best people."  Women are in fact better for these jobs (if you believe Peterson's claim about agreeability) - but are paid less.  That is sexist.

Quote

That is a really awful analogy.

And yet it's perfectly parallel to yours.  All traits that you might want to consider have some disparity between races.  You said men are provably stronger than women, and can no doubt produce valid personal examples to demonstrate that that is true.  Joe said that blacks are provably more lazy, and can no doubt produce similar personal examples. 

I know this because employers DID produce thousands of examples of how blacks are shiftless when they began to enter the workforce.  And in many cases they may have even been correct - a lot of blacks back then had no education and no good preparation for employment, because they were not welcome in society.  (Could not work the menial jobs that white teens could, could not join Boy Scouts or the military etc - and hence started out without the same background in working to assigned tasks that white kids had.)

Do any of those excuses make a preference for whites acceptable, and not racist?

[mbohu 77]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:41 AM, billvon said:

I know this because employers DID produce thousands of examples of how blacks are shiftless when they began to enter the workforce.  And in many cases they may have even been correct - a lot of blacks back then had no education and no good preparation for employment, because they were not welcome in society.

This is a really interesting example. In this case I would pull this apart into 3 separate things related to "racism"

1. If an employer simply has some kind of process that he uses to weed out people with the trait of "lazyness", and they apply this process to everyone equally, and then it happens that people of a specific race get weeded out more than others (when looking at the results AFTER the fact) then the employer isn't racist (in the traditional meaning of the term: prejudiced against a certain race)

2. HOWEVER, the employer's process may rely on his personal judgement and his personal judgement may not be as objective as he thinks (even if he has the best intentions)--in which case he may be affected by his unconscious bias (certain clothing or hairstyles may indicate "laziness" to him, while they may be more related to cultural standards, for example)--I don't think it's useful to say to that employer "you are a racist!" (as probably all of us are to some extent prone to unconscious bias--it's UNCONSCIOUS after all!) It may be useful to educate him about this, though.

3. Even if no (conscious or unconscious) "racism" by the employer is involved, this is a case of the effects of institutionalized racism. If, for historic reasons, people of a specific race (as you said, billvon) are now less educated and less prepared for employment, then I think it is reasonable to want to do SOMETHING to help them make up that gap and even the scales at least to some extent. But HOW to do that is a tricky thing: Can you force the employer by law to have to hire less qualified people solely to make up a certain quota from specific races (or other groupings)? (Man, that would be a hard pill to swallow for my small business! I'd sure prefer a different way...but would/should I be willing to make that "sacrifice"?) So the HOW is really something we can argue about, I think. (Many people even argue the IF of this question, but I think it shows at least a certain lack of empathy)

LASTLY: If the employer simply believes (correctly or incorrectly) that people of a certain race are lazier than others and therefore bases his decision on being "on the safe side, statistically" and does not hire people of that race, then I'd say you can clearly say he is racist (in any definition of the word.)
EVEN if he was correct that statistically certain groups are more likely to have certain undesirable characteristics (for whatever reasons) he should not be allowed to make his decision based on membership in the group (race). I think that one is easiest to agree upon.