Racial controversy

[Ramo]

Why?
They are totally analogous. The only difference is that dog breeds have many more differences among themselves than human races.

Exactly. The differences are far greater, so there's no basis for comparison.

As far as I could see, he was asserting the possibility, not the certainty.

He's a racist, and any pretense of "what if" is bull****.

If they aren't being investigated, how do you know they aren't there?

Again, there aren't any differences in selective pressures for these traits, and the perceptions of these traits in populations living in similar environments often are quite different. I haven't investigated the pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, but I know it's probably not there.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing if they're there, but how do you know they aren't?

How would they be? There's absolutely no doubt the KKK, etc., would eat that up, and if you believe otherwise you're deluding yourself.

hey can arise as side-effects due to changes in hormonal levels, for instance.

What are you talking about? What changes in hormonal levels?

Scientific interest?

The same reason why we have comparative religion, or linguistics.

1. Those aren't sciences.
2. The lines that divide different genetic traits are so haphazard, they're meaningless.

[Dom Pedro II]

I have long believed that there is no validity to race as a genetic reality. Of course, people who live together in certain areas have similar traits because they are more closely related and because of isolation. Still, a family might be characteristic for big noses, but one wouldn't be inclined to fit them into a category apart from another family or group of families. They might all be from the same race, or even different parts of the same overall family. "Race" is a spectrum not of categories but of billions of individuals.

Now, I would say that certain ethnic identities definitely have different general behaviors. This is due to a number of different factors including culture, socio-economic class, and such. What was somewhat ignored in the original example of races and prison populations is these environmental factors. The ratio of blacks to whites at or beneath the poverty level is definitely not equal. Consequently, the poor are more likely to engage in violent crimes or petty crimes than the wealthier classes (i.e. whiter classes). The crimes of the upper classes are tradiitonally more of white-collar crimes, and many of them have bought their way out of it. Also, more poor whites feel that social mobility is possible for them. Many urban, poor blacks have been sort of indoctrinated that their lives will never extend beyond the ghetto.

One theory I adhere to as well is that the ever-decreasing industries of the urban environment has created an employment bottleneck as corporations take their manufacturing divisions overseas. Personally, I think people forced to take jobs in the service sector where they are forced to wear funny paper hats, serve snooty wealthier people who treat you like garbage, and be forced to put up a professional facade by the orders of an over-bearing boss would basically try the patience of anyone. Its one thing when you're 16... its quite another when you're 35. It's degrading, and it certainly does not give one incentive to turn away the oppurtunity for greater money at higher risk.

[ranskaldan]

Firstly: yes it's muddy, and racism is wrong, but the appearance of genetic differences in appearance would imply that genetic differences can arise in other aspects as well.

As for Occam's Razor - it tells you to settle for the simplest explanation, but not to stick with it and reject all attempts to find out more about alternatives.

All in all I would agree that racism is wrong. But I don't think it's wrong because there are NO differences among races / spectrum locations / whatever. I think it's wrong because no human deserves to be pigeonholed before they have a chance to show their individual self.

[Ramo]

I have to ask, did you understand my point ?

Yes, you were saying that that I was attributing something to a post, and then to a thread. Which means you haven't been really reading my posts.

[Ramo]

but the appearance of genetic differences in appearance would imply that genetic differences can arise in other aspects as well.

Why?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


Exactly. The differences are far greater, so there's no basis for comparison.

The differences in humans would therefore be smaller. Hence, anything that occur among dog breeds could also occur among human races at a smaller scale.

He's a racist, and any pretense of "what if" is bull****.

Mmmm... I'm not going to turn this debate into one about Cali's personality.

Again, there aren't any differences in selective pressures for these traits, and the perceptions of these traits in populations living in similar environments often are quite different. I haven't investigated the pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon, but I know it's probably not there.

But I did give you a mechanism by which such differences COULD very well arise. It's a lot more probable than unicorns of any colour.

How would they be? There's absolutely no doubt the KKK, etc., would eat that up, and if you believe otherwise you're deluding yourself.

??? Are you arguing against my point? ???

What are you talking about? What changes in hormonal levels?

Different climates could result in different chemical/hormonal balances. And that, as a side effect, could lead to different temperaments.

Note that I use COULD, it's not a certainty, but it's certainly a possibility.

1. Those aren't sciences.
2. The lines that divide different genetic traits are so haphazard, they're meaningless.

Those are sciences in that they use the Scientific Method, making them different from art or theology.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


Why?

Because Evolution was able to produce such genetic differences, and should therefore be able to produce any other difference equal in scale.

(You know, one day I'll ask you about anarcho-syndicalism. But that's another story. )

[ranskaldan]

oh yeah, and I almost forgot:

Dom: I agree with you entirely, except for the first sentence.


see.... I read all replies...

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Ramo


Yes, you were saying that that I was attributing something to a post, and then to a thread. Which means you haven't been really reading my posts.

Let me:

rans:

Exactly... in the same way that the stripping away of deism did not diminish morality, neither would investigations into human phenotypes diminish our celebration of human diversity, to borrow a PC term

your response:

Saying that showing blacks are more violent than whites would help to "celebrate diversity" is totally absurd.

And when ranskaldan points out

Never did I say that blacks are more violent than whites.

, suddenly it's about the thread and not the post.

[Ramo]

The differences in humans would therefore be smaller. Hence, anything that occur among dog breeds could also occur among human races at a smaller scale.

Right, like at a scale of 0 length. You're not demonstrating anything by this comparison.

It's a lot more probably than unicorns of any colour.

How?

??? Are you arguing against my point? ???

Ah, I thought you wrote "how do you know it isn't." As for your point, it has already been addressed, many times.

Different climates could result in different chemical/hormonal balances. And that, as a side effect, could lead to different temperants.
.

1. That has absolutely nothing to do with a person's genses. If climates change temperment or whatever, they'd do so after birth.
2. There is absolutely no justification for different climates leading to different "temperments." This is totally absurd. Sounds like racist literature from a century ago.

Note that I use COULD, it's not a certainty, but it's certainly a possibility

The pink unicorn on the moon is also a possibility.

Those are sciences in that they use the Scientific Method, making them different from art or theology.

The classification of "race" has nothing to do with the scientific method.

[Ramo]

suddenly it's about the thread and not the post.

Like I said, you haven't been reading my posts, and are pulling this out of your ass. Look near the beginning of my argument with him. That's the post I was referring to, about the tastefulness about what the thread is about, which is what Cali started in the initial post.

Because Evolution was able to produce such genetic differences, and should therefore be able to produce any other difference equal in scale.

Evolution can do anything? That's your argument?

You know, one day I'll ask you about anarcho-syndicalism. But that's another story.

It has much more basis than what you're spouting.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo


Right, like at a scale of 0 length. You're not demonstrating anything by this comparison.

Racial, or if you like, phenotypical differences between humans is NOT 0 in length.

How?



Ah, I thought you wrote "how do you know it isn't." As for your point, it has already been addressed, many times.

How?

You have simply been telling me that it is improbable, without a reason why it is.

1. That has absolutely nothing to do with a person's genses. If climates change temperment or whatever, they'd do so after birth.
2. There is absolutely no justification for different climates leading to different "temperments." This is totally absurd. Sounds like racist literature from a century ago.

There's an interlinking step between temperament and climate, by the way.

The pink unicorn on the moon is also a possibility.

Since there are no unicorns anywhere and no air on the moon, it is very very unlikely.

But there ARE regional phenotypical differences on Earth.

The classification of "race" has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Then neither does any classification. How would classifications like "metal", "non-metal" etc be any different?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ramo
Evolution can do anything? That's your argument?

Yes - due to genetic drift even.

you yourself said that "violence" can be genetically encoded.

(disclaimer: again, the possibility, not certainty. )

It has much more basis than what you're spouting.

Anarcho-syndicalism?!

Well, we'll do that another day, I can't stand the thought of two simultaneous debates at 1 am.

[Ramo]

Racial, or if you like, phenotypical differences between humans is NOT 0 in length.

I never said they were. However, I was addressing intelligence, propensity towards violence, and the like.

How?

You have simply been telling me that it is improbable, without a reason why it is.

I already have. There isn't any reasonable difference in selective pressures. And your hormone/climate/temperment theory has no scientific basis. And has nothing to do with the argument.

There's an interlinking step between temperament and climate, by the way.

So? That doesn't make it less crazy. Find some evidence for your "theory" not from David Duke's web site.

Since there are no unicorns anywhere and no air on the moon, it is very very unlikely.

But there ARE regional phenotypical differences on Earth.

Differences in intelligence between "races" is more likely than the pink unicorn on teh dark side of the moon, I'll grant you that. However, one difference doesn't mean any difference exists.

Then neither does any classification. How would classifications like "metal", "non-metal" etc be any different?

They aren't. That's why music classifications can be so absurd.

[Ramo]

disclaimer: again, the possibility, not certainty. )

Yep, like the pink unicorn.