"Racism" is a relatively new concept.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
I would just like to add that as a Jewish communist...

I have nothing to say on this subject.

Carry on.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-08-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 02:40 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 02:35 PM)nach_in Wrote:  There's the issue. Based on what evidence do you say that some group is more intelligent than other? and are you sure that you're taking into account the myriad of other elements that influence in intellectual development of this groups? In which group are you?
When you talk about humans and their "nature" is best to tip toe on the biological claims, often culture, history and society can impact on people so much that biology takes a secondary role in people's life

People tip toe on biological claims because for a long time people have been persuaded of the blank slate theory, in that we are empty molds and our abilities are purely influenced by our environments/culture/societies.

I tend to think it is all involved, but that genetics play a more significant role. After all, our societies and cultures are an extension of our nature, and nature is an extension of our genes.

I agree to some extent. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that a genetic group is biologically more intelligent just because it's in their genes without some serious evidence. And evidence suggests that there isn't such a difference and while some groups have significantly less relevance in politics or academia, those groups are also less privileged and have other obstacles that prevent them to fully develop.

The same goes for other traits like agility or artistic predisposition.

So no, I don't think we can generalize something so complex and ill defined as intelligence based on biology yet. Much less if we acknowledge that variation among individuals of a group is enormous and that these "groups" are only defined on some superficial characteristics. There's no substantial difference between a black and a white puddle, so if we're going to say there's a factual basis for racism then you'll have to provide some serious and definitive evidence for it.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like nach_in's post
02-08-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 02:53 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 02:40 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  People tip toe on biological claims because for a long time people have been persuaded of the blank slate theory, in that we are empty molds and our abilities are purely influenced by our environments/culture/societies.

I tend to think it is all involved, but that genetics play a more significant role. After all, our societies and cultures are an extension of our nature, and nature is an extension of our genes.

I agree to some extent. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that a genetic group is biologically more intelligent just because it's in their genes without some serious evidence. And evidence suggests that there isn't such a difference and while some groups have significantly less relevance in politics or academia, those groups are also less privileged and have other obstacles that prevent them to fully develop.

The same goes for other traits like agility or artistic predisposition.

So no, I don't think we can generalize something so complex and ill defined as intelligence based on biology yet. Much less if we acknowledge that variation among individuals of a group is enormous and that these "groups" are only defined on some superficial characteristics. There's no substantial difference between a black and a white puddle, so if we're going to say there's a factual basis for racism then you'll have to provide some serious and definitive evidence for it.

I can give you the evidence and studies in favor of "racism". And you could give me the evidence and studies in favor of egalitarianism, or whatever.

The problem your position faces is that the prominent scientific figures that led it (Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, etc) have been found to be frauds with political motivations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 03:00 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 02:58 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 02:53 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I agree to some extent. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that a genetic group is biologically more intelligent just because it's in their genes without some serious evidence. And evidence suggests that there isn't such a difference and while some groups have significantly less relevance in politics or academia, those groups are also less privileged and have other obstacles that prevent them to fully develop.

The same goes for other traits like agility or artistic predisposition.

So no, I don't think we can generalize something so complex and ill defined as intelligence based on biology yet. Much less if we acknowledge that variation among individuals of a group is enormous and that these "groups" are only defined on some superficial characteristics. There's no substantial difference between a black and a white puddle, so if we're going to say there's a factual basis for racism then you'll have to provide some serious and definitive evidence for it.

I can give you the evidence and studies in favor of "racism". And you could give me the evidence and studies in favor of egalitarianism, or whatever.

The problem your position faces is that the prominent scientific figures that led it (Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, etc) have been found to be frauds with political motivations.

Now you can just fuck off troll.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
02-08-2013, 03:04 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 02:58 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 02:53 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I agree to some extent. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that a genetic group is biologically more intelligent just because it's in their genes without some serious evidence. And evidence suggests that there isn't such a difference and while some groups have significantly less relevance in politics or academia, those groups are also less privileged and have other obstacles that prevent them to fully develop.

The same goes for other traits like agility or artistic predisposition.

So no, I don't think we can generalize something so complex and ill defined as intelligence based on biology yet. Much less if we acknowledge that variation among individuals of a group is enormous and that these "groups" are only defined on some superficial characteristics. There's no substantial difference between a black and a white puddle, so if we're going to say there's a factual basis for racism then you'll have to provide some serious and definitive evidence for it.

I can give you the evidence and studies in favor of "racism". And you could give me the evidence and studies in favor of egalitarianism, or whatever.

The problem your position faces is that the prominent scientific figures that led it (Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, etc) have been found to be frauds with political motivations.

I don't vouch for egalitarianism, I don't think everyone is the same, I do think everyone is valuable though. But that value can't be defined a priori by some generalization of arbitrarily defined groups. It's a rather case by case system we need to encourage each person skills and predispositions do they can reach their maximum potential and thus contribute better to the whole.

Do you see the difference?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 03:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 02:58 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  I can give you the evidence and studies in favor of "racism". And you could give me the evidence and studies in favor of egalitarianism, or whatever.

The problem your position faces is that the prominent scientific figures that led it (Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, etc) have been found to be frauds with political motivations.

I don't vouch for egalitarianism, I don't think everyone is the same, I do think everyone is valuable though. But that value can't be defined a priori by some generalization of arbitrarily defined groups. It's a rather case by case system we need to encourage each person skills and predispositions do they can reach their maximum potential and thus contribute better to the whole.

Do you see the difference?

I agree with you to an extent. However, I will not support a socialized system that seeks to either attempt to equalize everyone or to take advantage of their distinct value for the "whole".

And while everyone has some value to them, there are also traits that could be considered detrimental for a society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 03:29 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 03:23 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 03:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I don't vouch for egalitarianism, I don't think everyone is the same, I do think everyone is valuable though. But that value can't be defined a priori by some generalization of arbitrarily defined groups. It's a rather case by case system we need to encourage each person skills and predispositions do they can reach their maximum potential and thus contribute better to the whole.

Do you see the difference?

I agree with you to an extent. However, I will not support a socialized system that seeks to either attempt to equalize everyone or to take advantage of their distinct value for the "whole".

And while everyone has some value to them, there are also traits that could be considered detrimental for a society.

Racism, Bigotry, stupidity, and Malice would be a few we could do without.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
02-08-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 03:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 03:23 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  I agree with you to an extent. However, I will not support a socialized system that seeks to either attempt to equalize everyone or to take advantage of their distinct value for the "whole".

And while everyone has some value to them, there are also traits that could be considered detrimental for a society.

Racism, Bigotry, stupidity, and Malice would be a few we could do without.

I see what you did there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 03:42 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 03:23 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 03:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I don't vouch for egalitarianism, I don't think everyone is the same, I do think everyone is valuable though. But that value can't be defined a priori by some generalization of arbitrarily defined groups. It's a rather case by case system we need to encourage each person skills and predispositions do they can reach their maximum potential and thus contribute better to the whole.

Do you see the difference?

I agree with you to an extent. However, I will not support a socialized system that seeks to either attempt to equalize everyone or to take advantage of their distinct value for the "whole".

And while everyone has some value to them, there are also traits that could be considered detrimental for a society.

However those traits haven't a thing to do with ones race.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 03:23 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 03:04 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I don't vouch for egalitarianism, I don't think everyone is the same, I do think everyone is valuable though. But that value can't be defined a priori by some generalization of arbitrarily defined groups. It's a rather case by case system we need to encourage each person skills and predispositions do they can reach their maximum potential and thus contribute better to the whole.

Do you see the difference?

I agree with you to an extent. However, I will not support a socialized system that seeks to either attempt to equalize everyone or to take advantage of their distinct value for the "whole".

And while everyone has some value to them, there are also traits that could be considered detrimental for a society.

Ok, but racism then is not a good concept, as race is not a well defined concept, and we don't have an objective and universal way to "sort" people out, so I'd say that racism as you seem to understand it is not a valid concept, let alone a politically useful word (you know, connotation and such).

On how to "harness" this traits or how to prevent the bad ones, it's a whole different debate, so lets not go there...

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: