Racial controversy

[MikeH]

If you can rule out all the social differences then you can start looking at genetics. Otherwise it's racist mainly because logically it makes no sense that race would have an affect on how likely you are to be a criminal. That would assume some absolute preprogrammed set of morals in each person and that the colour of your skin had some kind of an influence over what those were. It's not instinctive behaviour like pulling your hand away from a fire if it's too hot or blinking in bright light.

South Africa is a good case where the minority doesn't commit more crime than the majority. And in that case you could easily argue that it's 'cause the minority is generally richer than the majority. Again. Societal cause.

[Solly]

That would assume some absolute preprogrammed set of morals in each person and that the colour of your skin had some kind of an influence over what those were

No-one is saying the colour of the skin causes it. More that evolutionary differences are more than just adaptation to sunlight.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH
it's racist mainly because logically it makes no sense that race would have an affect on how likely you are to be a criminal. That would assume some absolute preprogrammed set of morals in each person and that the colour of your skin had some kind of an influence over what those were. It's not instinctive behaviour like pulling your hand away from a fire if it's too hot or blinking in bright light.

In western society, murder is a criminal act. Wouldnt having a higher level of testosterone make murder or violence more likely? There may also be other genetic factors in play that make someone more prone to violence.

We could debate all day whether different racial groups are more prone to violence or not, but all in all, there is no absolute proof either way. There is scientific evidence that supports both sides, so do you think I am evil and full of hate simply because I choose to believe the opposite side to you?

[Ramo]

This amounts to nothing more than name-calling.

We all know what you believe. You've made that quite clear in the numerous threads on the subject.

If both sides are totally honest they will admit that science has not proven whether races are equal or not.

Science hasn't proven whether pink unicorns are on the dark side of the moon. Science has shown that differences in intelligence, agressiveness, etc. between "races" are unlikely to exist.

[Japher]

Proving something doesn't exist does not prove that it can't.

Proving something does exist does not prove that it can't, too.

Thus, proof is only confined to the conditions in which the test is designed for.

Since genetics varies from one individual to the next it could be safe to assume that it *could* vary from one race to another, but that would be true within the cases for which it is studied.

Thus, it all comes back to statistics.

Women are more likely to have children...

Science has shown that differences in intelligence, agressiveness, etc. between "races" are unlikely to exist.

Really? Where? When?

That is highly unlikely. Chemical and physical conditions differ amongst race, sex, etc... This is FACT. I do not see any way science can indicate anything about behavior based on the presence or lack of these chemical and physical differences.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo



We all know what you believe. You've made that quite clear in the numerous threads on the subject.

So what? It doesnt mean I hate people of other races...

Science has shown that differences in intelligence, agressiveness, etc. between "races" are unlikely to exist.

No it hasn't Ramo. No doubt it appears that way to you because you refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. You are willfully ignorant, you even admitted that yourself:

Originally posted by Ramo
If there were differences, however miniscule, I wouldn't want to know, and I don't think anyone ought to know.

[Ramo]

Really? Where? When?

There are no concievable selective pressures. And that silly hormone theory rans came up with doesn't count. Racist ideas have no place in human evolutionary biology.

[Ramo]

So what? It doesnt mean I hate people of other races...

I never said you did.

No it hasn't Ramo. No doubt it appears that way to you because you refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. You are willfully ignorant, you even admitted that yourself:

I might be willfully ignorant were there evidence to support your position. But I've refuted your absurd claims every single time you brought them up.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo
I might be willfully ignorant were there evidence to support your position. But I've refuted your absurd claims every single time you brought them up.

Not really, you just came up with evidence to support your own position. If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to admit that there is valid evidence to support both sides. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people, who have looked more deeply into the science of this than I, who believe that different races are likely to have genetic differences that are more than skin deep.

You seem to think its "racist" (evil) to seek to know the truth of this matter. To me that sounds like the kind of position a christian fundimentalist would take if they knew of efforts to disprove something the Bible says (its EVIL!).

I never said you did

Well that is part of what "racism" means to me.

[Ramo]

There are plenty of extremely intelligent people, who have looked more deeply into the science of this than I, who believe that different races are likely to have genetic differences that are more than skin deep.

I don't dispute that there are differences more than skin deep (i.e. disease resistances, and whatnot). I dispute that these differences amount to intelligence or agressiveness disparities. And even if "smart people" believe that, smart people can believe a lot of absurd things (for instance, I'm sure Heisenberg believed Nazi propaganda about the untermensch to at least some extent), and there's absolutely no rational basis for that belief.

You seem to think its "racist" (evil) to seek to know the truth of this matter.

Umm.. no. I think it's wrong to spout racist viewpoints regardless of whether they're true or not. It's overwhelmingly likely that I have no problem with the "truth."

And racism is not the same thing as evil. Racist beliefs are what you favor. Which I consider morally wrong.

Not really, you just came up with evidence to support your own position.

But I've never heard any evidence refuting my counter-arguments. That's the way debates work. Whenever I propose counter-arguments, y'all never address them. Just as if I were countering Creationist claims.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo
Umm.. no. I think it's wrong to spout racist viewpoints regardless of whether they're true or not. It's overwhelmingly likely that I have no problem with the "truth."

It seems to me that the only "truth" you will accept is one that supports your beliefs. Even if confronted with absoute proof, you would not change your mind.

And racism is not the same thing as evil. Racist beliefs are what you favor. Which I consider morally wrong.

How is it morally wrong to seek to know the truth? So far I am more convinced by the arguments presented by the "racists", but I would not refuse to accept absolute proof that they were wrong. You, on the other hand, have an almost religious conviction that you are right.

But I've never heard any evidence refuting my counter-arguments. That's the way debates work. Whenever I propose counter-arguments, y'all never address them. Just as if I were countering Creationist claims.

I, and others, have countered your arguments, but why should we continue when its clear that your mind is made up. Its fine that you have your own beliefs on this matter, we all have our own opinions, but you seem to think that you have the moral high ground when this is a purely scientific matter.

[Ramo]

It seems to me that the only "truth" you will accept is one that supports your beliefs. Even if confronted with absoute proof, you would not change your mind.

Not at all. I wouldn't reject anything if I had adequate proof it is true. All I'm saying is that I'd rather not know if your racist claims are true since I don't want unconscious biases on people because of their skin color.

How is it morally wrong to seek to know the truth?

It isn't wrong to seek to truth. It's wrong to assert a racist claim, particularly when it has absolutely no evidence is going for it.

It's wrong to spread racist claims, even if they are true, as it would certainly lead to the oppression of those you deem inferior (and don't give me that bull**** about how you think no race is better than another, only different races have various strengths and weaknesses).

Honestly, tell my why you are so obsessed with proving this point? What is the point your little crusade? Since there's no concievable way this information could benefit society, what motivates you?

BTW, the last thing you are doing is "seeking the truth."

So far I am more convinced by the arguments presented by the "racists", but I would not refuse to accept absolute proof that they were wrong. You, on the other hand, have an almost religious conviction that you are right.

Not at all. Science supports my position (read my argument regarding selection pressures again), while you have absolutely nothing supporting your argument besides statistics with dubious samples and controls (i.e. the argument you brought up in your first post).

As for the claim regarding absolute proof, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I, and others, have countered your arguments,

In your dreams. You've abandoned every single one of your racist propaganda threads after I and other anti-racists have countered your arguments.

but why should we continue when its clear that your mind is made up.

On the contrary, it's clear your mind is made up with your obsession with proving the inferiority of blacks in terms of intelligence and so forth when you have nothing to back your claims.

Also, my mind is not made up. My mind is not made up on anything.

And if you are too chicken**** to argue your points, why do you bother posting your racist bull in this forum?

[Ramo]

It's interesting to note that despite the various arguments che and I have brought up against your initial claim, you haven't revealed any argument for your claim besides your statistic about crime, which has been ripped apart by many, many people. So much for the "seeking truth."

[gsmoove23]

Yeah the debate sorta puttered out a few pages ago. The last real good post I remember is this one yet not much in the way of a response except to complain about his assertion that the case was closed.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This shows your non-understanding of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE merely says that animals will adapt to their environment. In this case, dark-skinned, curly haired humans did not fair as well in northern climes. Their children who were lighter skinned were able to make more Vitimin D with their skin and retain more heat in the long Northern winters than their dark children. Eventually, light-skinned decendents out-competed dark-skinned inhabitants. What other traits would be selected against moving to the north?

Another major problem that the biological racists have, though they never acknowledge it is, their argument is limited by time. The first civilizations weren't white. In fact, Indo-Europeans were barbarian nomads who invaded and conquered the civlizations of browner peoples. If we are inherently smarter, why didn't we create our own civilizations until nearly 4,000 years after others?

For a thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese, and Africans who were the standard bearers of civiliation while most our ancestors were hide-robed barbarians who were afraid of bathes and couldn't write. For most of civilized history, the Chinese were the leaders of civilization, and they probably will be again in a hundred years or so.

In the 19th Century, violent crime was far more likely to be committed in the US by white men against everyone. Black people didn't account for a majority of violent crimes until fairly recently in American history, probably the 1950s and later when the majority of Black people began living in cities.

So, can we make a deterimination that Black people are biologically more likely to committ a violent crime based on 50 years out of 8,000? Seems kind, well, f*cking stupid if you ask me.

Case closed!

I would prefer not to have further investigation in this subject for the very sensible reason that I don't want my race proven inferior, and I'm white. I guess other posters on this thread are just certain about the conclusions.

[ranskaldan]

I'm going to offend everyone here, but:

Cali: your entire point, you realize, lacks evidence. Seriously, it doesn't have any evidence for it.

Ramo: your entire point is based on absolute denial and self contradiction. No evidence - fine. But your point is built on the idea that EVEN IF there is evidence, you are going to close your eyes to it. Hence you are, in fact, opposed to the very idea of truth.

Tell me, what if it's proven tomorrow somehow that whites are 6% more likely to have a certain violent gene than blacks? Well you're going to tell that that this isn't true. But WHAT IF? Are you going to simply deny it, and advocate the stopping of all research into the area? If you do, I have no problem with your moral choice - but you are no longer defending truth.