When we find something "negative" out about ethnic minorities, why..

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Show me proof that in all non-superficial matters all races are equal, then you can call me a bad person for refusing to believe it.

Equal in what? Abilities? Genetics? What?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Pretty big, comparatively. There are 46 chromosomes in the human genome. In the case between you and your mom, one of them is a [i]completely different chromosome

It doesn't matter that much. The genetic variation between any two human beings is like 0.001%.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
I never said it measured behavioural traits, I said it measured physical traits.

I'm talking about physical traits, behavioral traits, EVERYTHING. It's called "phenotype".

Behavior is measured by society and upbringing. Physical characteristics (as in do I have feet or fins) are determined by genes. How can genes NOT measure how similar your physical traits are? Or am I misunderstanding you...

Misunderstanding me.

Genotype is the genome. Phenotype is the traits that are expressed. Phenotype can be somewhat plastic - it is not necessarily dependent on genes (i.e. there can be environmental components). My point is that % correlation between genomes tells you virtually nothing about % correlation between the phenotype, even ignoring environmental factors.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It doesn't matter that much. The genetic variation between any two human beings is like 0.001%.

Forty-six chromosomes. One of them completely different makes roughly 2% of the genome. Even given that the sex chromosomes are slightly shorter than average, the difference between men and women based on that alone is significant.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Why? It's a scientific question, not a moral one.

Show me proof that in all non-superficial matters all races are equal, then you can call me a bad person for refusing to believe it.

Blacks tend to have a larger muscular mass, and I think northern Europeans are larger. But tjese are superficial matters right? You wouldn't think that certain races have better intellectual capabilities?

[Kuciwalker]

That's certainly possible. I doubt that it's true, but it there is no particular reason it is necessarily false.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Forty-six chromosomes. One of them completely different makes roughly 2% of the genome.

Where did you get "one completely chromosome" from? 23 of them came from your father and 23 of them came from your mother. But you are not 50% different from either your mother or your father.

Originally posted by Kucinich
Even given that the sex chromosomes are slightly shorter than average, the difference between men and women based on that alone is significant.

Actually no. As a % of total number of genes, the difference is very small. You have to realise that most people have very similar genes - even chimps are 98% identical to us. So it's not possible that any person is 2% different from their direct parents.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Where did you get "one completely chromosome" from? 23 of them came from your father and 23 of them came from your mother. But you are not 50% different from either your mother or your father.

X and Y chromosome.

[Solly]

"Blacks tend to have a larger muscular mass"

Isn't that only true of those that survived slavetrips to the US (and their descendants)?

"and I think northern Europeans are larger."

Yes. True especially with some Scandinavian countries.

"But thjese are superficial matters right?"

Those are the only damn differences that exist! nything else is racism!!

[Whaleboy]

I have to agree with PA to an extent. Scientifically noticing differences is not racism, for example, those of African descent are going to have more melanine in their skin than a caucasian. This is what we call an empirical observation.

However, identifying positivity and negativity there is an inherently racist proposition, since it is positive discrimination. Taking actions based upon that is applied discrimination, be it positive or negative.

[asleepathewheel]

Hmm. I wonder what Paul Hornung would say about this. Oh right, I know...

[Solly]

Thanks Whaleboy. There are a lot of differences in my opinion, but that doesn't mean ascribing "positive" or "negative" to any of them like Laz thinks.

[Caligastia]

I don't think ascribing positivity or negativity is inherently racist. Refusing to describe an attribute as positive or negative is just silly if it's obvious that it's one or the other. For example if one race has a greater resistance to a certain kind of disease than another race, are we supposed to pretend it's not positive because to recognise this would be racist?

[Japher]

Change "genes" to "% correlation in genotype". Happy now?

I am... that was a good flame

[Whaleboy]

Thanks Whaleboy. There are a lot of differences in my opinion, but that doesn't mean ascribing "positive" or "negative" to any of them like Laz thinks.

Well it's a folly to assume that all men are equal, seeing as how we are all different. We should be aware that the differences between us as individuals are far greater than differences due to ethnicity, gender etc. There is very little you can do with the knowledge of those differences without being racist, but accepting that knowledge is not racist in itself.