Racial controversy

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
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.

This is what I find curious. The arguments of the racists have been demolished, refuted, and repudiated by 90% of the scientific community. Those who claim to support these arguments are generally not accredited scientists and often have links to white supremacy groups, which severely taints any notions of objectivity on their part.

The biggest disproof of their claims, of course, is the ignoring of history, to which I pointed. If whites were more intelligent, why is it that we've only been in charge of civilization for a minority of civilized history? Why is it we lost that supremacy for a thousand years to supposedly "less intelligent" peoples? Why was the majority of violence directed by whites against Blacks for most of American history if Black people are more prone to violence?

[gsmoove23]

Well a 6% more chance would not be statistically relevant for a study but how would any truth be gained from a study like this anyway. It would be surrounded by such a firestorm of debate, hmmm who sponsored the study, lets look into the scientists lives and discredit them, give me a break. Does anyone see a possible scenario where any TRUTH is gained from studies of this sort? The reasons aren't only moral. Its pure insanity to think any relevant conclusions can be made and debated in an objective atmosphere. This thread is the prime example!

[Ramo]

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.

No, I wouldn't.

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.

1. Such research serves absolutely no point, except to incite hatred, so yes I wouldn't support it now or ever.

2. No, I would not deny it. I was simply pointing that I would rather not know since I don't want any unconscious biases based on skin color. I can't very well prevent myself from knowing if I see valid evidence for it.

[Ramo]

And gs certainly brings up a good point. But if the difference were bigger, the answer is the same.

[chequita guevara]

One of the more interesting points around The Bell Curve was that the "scientists" who claimed to make new points in their book mostly said that everyone was trying to shut them down without discussing the points. When scientists were called upon to discuss the book, they were always attacked with, "Why are you trying to stop this book?" even when they were trying to discuss the points and problems with the book's methodology and conclusions. In other words, the discussion was shut down not by those opposed to the book, but by the authors themselves, who were able to create a storm of controverse and gain sympathy over something that wasn't happening and at the same time quashed any refuting of their work. Machievelian brilliance to be sure, but that won't fly here.

[Ramo]

Yep, some of the studies in The Bell Curve were quite amusing. My favorite was where the "scientists" referenced determined that blacks are less intelligent than whites by taking the majority of their statistics from South Africa.

[tinyp3nis]

che, about every point made by you on this page (including quoted) are exactly the same thing what Cali did with the "blacks are more violent example" at the beginning of this thread. _If_ calis example seems irrational to you, I think your own points should too. Too many variables in every example, impossible to pick one variable among them and try to define it. Just like Calis claim.
P.s your last post is not one of those I meant.

[Dr Strangelove]

You all do know that Arabs and Indians (east) are technically Caucasians don't you?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You all do know that Arabs and Indians (east) are technically Caucasians don't you?

I don't know anything, before I entered into this thread I was certain there are even different races!

[Ramo]

che, about every point made by you on this page (including quoted) are exactly the same thing what Cali did with the "blacks are more violent example" at the beginning of this thread. _If_ calis example seems irrational to you, I think your own points should too. Too many variables in every example, impossible to pick one variable among them and try to define it. Just like Calis claim.
P.s your last post is not one of those I meant.

che is refuting anecdotal evidence with other anecdotal evidence to show how rediculous Cali's assertion is. It's much more relevant than what Cali posted.

You all do know that Arabs and Indians (east) are technically Caucasians don't you?

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.

[gsmoove23]

Wouldn't it suck if you were Indian to only technically be part of your race?

[Ramo]

I'm a caucasian Indian.

[gsmoove23]

I feel for you man.

[Ramo]

You think I have it rough? What about Iranians, who are also caucasian? Or Jews and Arabs, who are the same race?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
che, about every point made by you on this page (including quoted) are exactly the same thing what Cali did with the "blacks are more violent example" at the beginning of this thread.

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.

Dr. S., shhhhh!

It's true, they are Caucausian, but they aren't white, at least by some people's definition. Hell, Arabs aren't even a phenotype group, but simply a people linked by language. This is part of my point about the mutable concept of race. By one definition, they are all members of the same race. By other definitions, they are all different races. How can we make determinations on the supposed abilities of one group or antoher when we can't even agree that the groups exist.