"Racism" is a relatively new concept.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-08-2013, 03:59 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.

Of course genetics is important. What you don't appear to know is that the genetic variation within any given 'racial' group is greater than the differences between groups.

Your concepts of race are unscientific and have been thoroughly debunked.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 03:42 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys 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.

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

Wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 03:59 PM)Chas 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.

Of course genetics is important. What you don't appear to know is that the genetic variation within any given 'racial' group is greater than the differences between groups.

Your concepts of race are unscientific and have been thoroughly debunked.

You are appealing to Lewontin's fallacy. Lewontin is an egalitarian fraud, no different to Stephen Jay Gould. He has been debunked thoroughly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
This whole "there is a genetic element that some races are just stupid" seems like some kind of ridiculous dance to make otherwise underachieving white guys feel better about themselves... and feel justified in looking down on others. Weak.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 04:05 PM)morondog Wrote:  This whole "there is a genetic element that some races are just stupid" seems like some kind of ridiculous dance to make otherwise underachieving white guys feel better about themselves... and feel justified in looking down on others. Weak.

Firstly, I did not suggest that "some races are just stupid". That is a simplistic strawman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:15 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 04:09 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 04:05 PM)morondog Wrote:  This whole "there is a genetic element that some races are just stupid" seems like some kind of ridiculous dance to make otherwise underachieving white guys feel better about themselves... and feel justified in looking down on others. Weak.

Firstly, I did not suggest that "some races are just stupid". That is a simplistic strawman.

Oh, so precisely what did you suggest ? Did you perhaps suggest that the within sample variation on a standard intelligence test controlled for variables such as lack of education, poverty etc is smaller than the between sample variation to a statistically significant confidence level ? Did you cite a widely accepted study ? Or did you not just make some vague assertion which basically amounts to exactly the so called "strawman" ?

On what authority do you keep claiming that scientists who don't agree with you have been thoroughly debunked ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 04:52 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.

If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death. - Ghost in the shell.

Which of course is true. Genetics does play a role and detrimental genetic traits/mutations will of course come along with an extremely diverse population.

However you've failed to consider that something like down syndrome might make them immune to a disease that decimates the planet, or that a person who lacks the intellect of a mathematician has other talents that contribute to society.

With the coming of new technologies we actually might be able to choose to eliminate those genetic risk factors from our gene pool, at the cost of diversity.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 04:02 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 03:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Of course genetics is important. What you don't appear to know is that the genetic variation within any given 'racial' group is greater than the differences between groups.

Your concepts of race are unscientific and have been thoroughly debunked.

You are appealing to Lewontin's fallacy. Lewontin is an egalitarian fraud, no different to Stephen Jay Gould. He has been debunked thoroughly.

No, not debunked - clarified.

"Biological anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks and philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 04:52 PM)fstratzero 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.

If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death. - Ghost in the shell.

Which of course is true. Genetics does play a role and detrimental genetic traits/mutations will of course come along with an extremely diverse population.

However you've failed to consider that something like down syndrome might make them immune to a disease that decimates the planet, or that a person who lacks the intellect of a mathematician has other talents that contribute to society.

With the coming of new technologies we actually might be able to choose to eliminate those genetic risk factors from our gene pool, at the cost of diversity.

I agree. Although that is all rather hypothetical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: "Racism" is a relatively new concept.
(02-08-2013 05:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-08-2013 04:02 PM)janthuffy Wrote:  You are appealing to Lewontin's fallacy. Lewontin is an egalitarian fraud, no different to Stephen Jay Gould. He has been debunked thoroughly.

No, not debunked - clarified.

"Biological anthropologists such as Jonathan Marks and philosophers Jonathan Kaplan and Rasmus Winther have argued that while Edwards's argument is correct it does not invalidate Lewontin's original argument, because racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population. Nor does it mean that races are not social constructs as is the prevailing view among anthropologists and social scientists, because the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance. According to this view Edwards and Lewontin are therefore both correct."

"racial groups being genetically distinct on average does not mean that racial groups are the most basic biological divisions of the world's population."

Strawman. No one makes this claim. The point is that they are divisions, and are very much distinct.

the particular genetic differences that correspond to races only become salient when racial categories take on social importance.

Sounds like something Tim Wise or Noel Ignatiev would say, hardly scientific. Although "social scientists" that appeal to the Lewontins and Goulds of the world cannot be trusted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: