Racial controversy

[tinyp3nis]

che is refuting anecdotal evidence with other anecdotal evidence

Yes and

to show how rediculous Cali's assertion is.

this would be convinient situation for him, wouldn't it?

Btw I almost included this in my last post:
"I guess it's somewhat reasonable if you strongly believe cali is racist and you are trying to convert him"
But I doubt/ed that was the motive.

It's much more relevant than what Cali posted.

How?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
Actually, Arabs are Semites, not Indo-Europeans (turning language groups into "racial" categories is incredibly tenuous BTW). And some Indians, for instance Dravidians, aren't Indo-Europeans either.

IndoEuropean is a linguistic group, not a racial group. Semites are also Caucasians, as are Dravidians. So are we one race or three?

[tinyp3nis]

I didn't distress this enough I guess:

_If_ calis example seems irrational to you, I think your own points should too.

[chequita guevara]

You are going to have to be far more specific, because you aren't making a damn bit of sense.

[tinyp3nis]

Well the "Don't you?" part made reply

And yet you miss the point that was clearly spelled out, don't you? If Black people are genetically more violent than whites, why isn't this borne out historically? Because no race is genetically superior to another nor is any race more "specialized" in some trait or another. The balance of power, civilization, and violence has shifted back and forth from one "race" to another throughout history. If we were genetically superior, we would always have been on top.

No, I did not, thank you.

[Ramo]

IndoEuropean is a linguistic group, not a racial group. Semites are also Caucasians, as are Dravidians. So are we one race or three?

Hmmm... I usually hear "racial" categories split between linguistic groups. It's all bull****, of course.

How?

To show Cali that if the original assertion holds water, so does his...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
No, I did not, thank you.

Explain it then.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You are going to have to be far more specific, because you aren't making a damn bit of sense.

It was all about too many variables. I think that is simple... How to make this more clear? Hmmm his example of blacks being more violent was not very clever because there were other issues involved than genes, and it's nearly(word included to avoid critisism) impossible to single out genes and how they are involved, right? The examples made by you were similar. Can you see how? Can you see the other things involved i.e in the history and peak points of cultures other than genes or any other single reason why something happened at certain point? The reasons can't be singled out.

[Caligastia]

This thread is getting a bit off-track. If you look at my original post, I am asking why people get so offended by the mere suggestion of a link between crime and race. I'm not so concerned (right now) with whether there is a link or not, I just want to know why the suggestion is offensive.

The reason I am asking is because, despite what some here are claiming, there is no evidence that all races are equal. So why is this suggestion so offensive?

Personally I think the reason so many are offended is because they can't separate the idea of unequal races from hatred and bigotry.

This topic is so fascinating for me because its so emotional for so many. The attitude I get truly amazes me. Its really tough to have a calm discussion of this topic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Can you see the other things involved i.e in the history and peak points of cultures other than genes or any other single reason why something happened at certain point? The reasons can't be singled out.

I am not positing that genes have anything to do with my exmples. I am positing the opposite, they have almost nothing to do with it. Over time, the superior genes should have shown themselves by making one race or the other dominent more often than another. Since that didn't happen, we are left to conclude that none of the "races" of humanity are superior to one another.

So far, what we have is, "well, there are visual variations among the 'races,' so there may or must be differences in other areas as well." The problem is, if those differences exist, why haven't they yet been detected? Disease resistance is the only unseen difference that scientists can show at this point. Changes only spread through a population when the lack of that mutation causes individuals to be less able to pass on their genes.

You have to explain why the environment in which white people evolved necessarily made us more intelligent than Africans. Why would people of average intelligence be unable to survive the Central Asian steppes? Certainly, it's a harsh environment, but no more so than many other parts of the world. What is special about that area that it required even greater intelligence to survive than say, the SouthWestern US?

Then, you need to explain why these supposedly superior peoples took so much longer to develop civilization (and couldn't hold onto it when they conquered it).

Caligastia, the suggestion is offensive because at the core of the main philosphical trend of western civilization is that all people are equal. The converse theme, that some people are better than others has led to immense suffering on this planet. Once the idea that some people are inherently better than others creeps in, it is used to justify all sorts of horrors. I highly doubt the crafters of "seperate, but equal" fully comprehended the evil that would done when they legalized segregation, but it was a natural and obvious outgrowth of the idea that "the races" aren't equal.

Even more offensive is that the idea is a lie. There is no proof whatsoever that "the races," whatever they are, are unequal. Every single "study" that shows Blacks to be the intellectual inferiors of whites has been decisively refuted. This can't be stated any more simply. You believe the racist lie because you want to believe it. To say otherwise is to say that there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists that are trying to supress the truth. I just don't think so.

[GeneralTacticus]

The reason I am asking is because, despite what some here are claiming, there is no evidence that all races are equal. So why is this suggestion so offensive?

I could bring up Ramo's pink unicorn example again, but it's getting a bit overused. There's NO EVIDENCE at all to suggest that the 'races' aren't equal, or even that 'races' exist as distinct entities at all. You're the one that needs to present evidence here.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Boddington's No-one is saying the colour of the skin causes it. More that evolutionary differences are more than just adaptation to sunlight.

But, as just one example, the variety of different tribes in Africa which the US and ultimately UK black populations came from had a wide variety of societies. The ones who were most likely to be sold into slavery were the more peaceful ones, captured and sold by the more warlike tribes to the white man. So you must be assuming that they have somehow evolved into violent criminals in the last 200 years? Or that black africa was a hotbed of violent crime within it's own societies before the white man arrived and ****ed them over? The historical evidence just doesn't back that up in any way.

And you are STILL totally ignoring that there might be a societal reason for the increase in crime. Why won't you even consider that? That is what makes everything you say about this issue racist.

Prove to me that there is no possibility of the nature of the society in which someone is brought up changing the likely hood of them becoming a criminal and then we can look at your allegations that it's because black people are 'naturally' more likely to become criminals.

[gsmoove23]

Tying evolutionary difference to skin colour for no other reason then skin colour is what we see obscures scientific research in itself, ignoring trends that cross racial boundaries. Its just plain stinkin' thinkin'

[TheStinger]

what about cases where parents have one white child and one black child, are these children different races?

[MikeH]

Yes. As I think someone already mentioned. The differences in physiology within each race wrt height, weight, muscle structure, fat levels, etc. etc. etc. are much more different than between the skin colours if you average out all the sub types within each skin colour grouping and compare them. That's if you can even define what skin tones fit into what group.