Are all races equal?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Couple points here Molly.

Can he cite the Bible as a source?

If so, I'm interested as well to see which passages he cites. I would think the table of the nations in Genesis would be a likely response, as would be the tower of babel.

If you don't accept this source, then you need to explain why and what makes the bible more or less trustworthy for knowledge about God.

It's not 'knowledge' about 'god' or 'god's design'- it's knowledge about 'race' and 'races'. I don't accept the Bible as a source for knowledge about genetics or 'races'- if the Bible, why not the Bhagavad Gita, Popol Vuh or any other number of 'holy' books? As for the table of nations and the tower of babel- they make pretty fables but they're hardly the same as d.n.a evidence, are they?

[Az]

well, it's good to see this thread is still doing well.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Seriously, Poland only grew large because of the weakness of most of its neighbors and because they inherited a larger country. They repeatedly had their tail kicked by Mongols, Tartars and Turks.

And they were repeatedly kicked by us.

In fact, the only reason they were able to beat the Turk at all is because the Turks were so powerful they were arrogent, and didn't bother to fortify their camp or even prepare their defences when they heard that a German and Polish army was coming. If the Turks had taken the simple step of digging trenches and moving their cannon, history would be very different indeed.

Perhaps, but that's how the history is made. If Byzantines weren't arogant and didn't try to solve their internal problems on the field of Mantzikert battle, they would have won as well. If Polish hetmans weren't drunk during some battles, they would have been won...

And yes, Luk is wrong, during Middle Ages Muslim civ was superior to west-Christian one.

[Az]

well, "Middle ages" is not a correct term.

"Before the Mongols invaded mesopotamia, and sent region back a couple of millenia" would be more appropriate.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Calc II


Is your definition of "superiority" by intelligence?

Yes.

I certainky think one can be "superior" over another by genetic comparison. Me compared to a person with down syndrome for example, its easy to determine typically I would be considered "superior".

True, but down syndrome affects the brain, does it not?

-But does that mean I am always at advantage over down sydrome patients no matter what kind of enviorrnment I am given?

I would say so. Can you think of any situation in which having down syndrome would be an advantage?

-And can you generalize the population of people with so much genetic pool with so much variety to conclude that a group is superior over another?

When you consider the great genetic variety among humans in general, and the great variety in intelligence that goes along with that, doesn't it seem unlikely to you that the average intelligence of any two groups of people would be the same? It does to me. This is one of the main reasons I believe in differences in intelligence between races.

-And can you determine the difference between genetics VS environment factors when you are making an observation that "typically X race is inferior over Y race"?

I believe that determination can be made, yes.

-And is defintion of superior absolute at all?

No. I believe the true, eternal part of us, the real us, cannot be determined to be superior or inferior on the basis of the race of the physical body.

In the end it's just too much uncertainty for me to say "yes, X is superior over Y". I wouldnt deny 100% that one race can be superior over another, but thats like me saying I wont deny the fact that little tooth fairies exist and they are just to shy to come by themselves so they hire mom and dad to do the job.

There is more evidence for racial intelligence differences than there is for the tooth fairy.

And in the end, even if someone comes up to me and persuades me to beleive that X is superior over Y, unless all Xs and Ys are the same, it really doesnt help you to be X, as long as there is range of difference. For example, if you are green and green intellectual range is 100 - 200 and you are the 101, it doesnt help you to be any better than the white people whos intellectual range is lets say, 60 - 120.

Exactly! It's stupid to judge an individual on the basis of their race alone.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's not evidence that Cali brought up. It's a bunch of racist blowhards making asses of themselves. They don't have anything to back them up except for degrees that could be in nearly anything (related to intelligence, WTH does that mean?).

Sure Ramo, theyre all just "racist blowhards". I don't know why I bother with you.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by molly bloom


You've stated in an earlier post that you believe 'god' created 'races'.

No I didn't, I said that racial differences are a part of God's plan.

When were you vouchsafed this knowledge? And in what form? Was it in a spreadsheet showing genetic drift, perhaps, or a set of stone tablets from Fox's glacier?

Your posts drip with sarcasm and arrogance. You have a nice vocabulary though.

There's nothing self-righteous about my comment- I have to rely on scientific enquiry rather than oracular gifts- and the discussion will never go anywhere if you rely on divine friends to bolster your arguments.

Science has the power to explain much in the physical realm, but there are things that exist beyond mere science. Although racial differences can be explained in purely material terms, understanding their purpose requires an understanding of spiritual realities. That is not something I can pursuade you of, you have to discover it for yourself.

[Japher]

I thought I would just dig this thread up one more time just to make Azazel happy.

Science has the power to explain much in the physical realm, but there are things that exist beyond mere science. Although racial differences can be explained in purely material terms, understanding their purpose requires an understanding of spiritual realities. That is not something I can pursuade you of, you have to discover it for yourself.

Cali explains things so well.

If you can't except the fact that if something looks different than it is different, than I feel sorry for you. You should sue all the schools you went to.

I don't use words like "superior" or "inferior" I just use "different". That is exactly how it is. If we lived in a world that used a different "logic ladder" in order to "reason" then perhaps things would be different. If we still lived in a society where the strongest or quickest person was in charge, perhaps things would be different.

I don't understand how ppl can run around saying things like "there is no difference between this and that", yet turn around, and in the same breath, say "but this and that needs special attention". Why!? Because they are different. It is so blatantly obvious that if it were a snake it would of bit you in the butt.

The sooner we are able to notice the differences for what they are the sooner we will be able to accept these differences, and in some cases correct them for the "better".

Of course "better" is based on sociological dogma is most cases. Yet, removing genetic traits that can lead to death, deformation, health problems, etc. would definitly make that person "better".

Is one race more inclined to have a lower measure of intelligence than another? I don't know. Does anyone? Probably not. But, to say that because there is no evidence for or against such a theory that it should be a mute point is absurd. If there is a scientific (genetic) reason for this difference, then wouldn't it be nice to find out and change it. or at least have the opportunity? With logic like that I hope whoever implied that is not a scientist. "Yeah, AIDS may or may not be an issue with the immune system, but since there is no proof either way it doesn't really matter."

Absurd

[Master Zen]

Caligastia:

If you say superiority is based on intelligence you should know that there is no one way of measuring intelligence.

There are those who are intelligent at math and science but suck at history and government, etc. and the other way around. Which is more intelligent then? Can you actually differentiate between these two types of intelligence and say that one is superior to the other? Some intelligent people, or "nerds" have absolutely no social skills which other less intelligent people have in abundance and consecuently end up being less "succesful" than their IQ or SAT scores would show. Is that nerd truly superior to the other? Studies would show it to be so, but the big bad world makes all these standardized test pretty useless.

I also have issues with what you mention as "success". Can this be measured too? I don't think so because it depends on personal matters. A six-digit lawyer might lead a miserable existence, longing for something better while a $30,000 a year shoe salesman might be content as can be with his situation in life. Which is more succesful? The lawyer might win much more money but is unhappy with his position and in his own eyes might not consider himself succesful. Success cannot be measured in $$$ but only as being what you want to be.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Caligastia:

If you say superiority is based on intelligence you should know that there is no one way of measuring intelligence.

The best way is to average out the results of several different tests.

There are those who are intelligent at math and science but suck at history and government, etc. and the other way around. Which is more intelligent then? Can you actually differentiate between these two types of intelligence and say that one is superior to the other? Some intelligent people, or "nerds" have absolutely no social skills which other less intelligent people have in abundance and consecuently end up being less "succesful" than their IQ or SAT scores would show. Is that nerd truly superior to the other? Studies would show it to be so, but the big bad world makes all these standardized test pretty useless.

As I said, no one test will do it.

I also have issues with what you mention as "success". Can this be measured too? I don't think so because it depends on personal matters. A six-digit lawyer might lead a miserable existence, longing for something better while a $30,000 a year shoe salesman might be content as can be with his situation in life. Which is more succesful? The lawyer might win much more money but is unhappy with his position and in his own eyes might not consider himself succesful. Success cannot be measured in $$$ but only as being what you want to be.

When I refer to success, I am of course referring to material wealth. Most wealthy people got that way through hard work and intelligence.

[Ben Kenobi]

When I refer to success, I am of course referring to material wealth.

But that's the $64,000 question. Is success really tied to wealth? Do we consider the wealthiest people in the US to be the most successful?

I'd say no. I'd think the most successful people are those who achieve excellence in their chosen career in terms of knowledge and ability. Some careers in a capitalist system are not well compensated, thus these people do not become the wealthiest in the society.

This success has very little to do with genetics or with race although some systematic barriers are in place. What makes a person good in his field is hard work and study as well as a little luck in meeting other intelligent people in his field and to receive proper training.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
But that's the $64,000 question. Is success really tied to wealth? Do we consider the wealthiest people in the US to be the most successful?

Yes, we do. This is the most common definition of success, so I'm going with it. Of course there is a lot more to life than money, but I am talking strictly about financial success here.

I'd say no. I'd think the most successful people are those who achieve excellence in their chosen career in terms of knowledge and ability. Some careers in a capitalist system are not well compensated, thus these people do not become the wealthiest in the society.

This success has very little to do with genetics or with race although some systematic barriers are in place. What makes a person good in his field is hard work and study as well as a little luck in meeting other intelligent people in his field and to receive proper training.

I tend to think the wealthier half of the country are generally happier than the poorer half. Not to say that wealth = happiness, but there you go.

[Ben Kenobi]

So a basketball player who skips college is more successful than a poet or an astrophysicist simply because society compensates him more?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
So a basketball player who skips college is more successful than a poet or an astrophysicist simply because society compensates him more?

I never said successful = better.

[Master Zen]

According to your arguments:

Superiorty is measured by intelligence

Intelligence is measured by tests which lead to the conclusion that people from certain races are more "successful" than others

Success is measured in terms of material wealth.

So therefore, superiority is based on material wealth

You may not have "said" it, but this is what your arguments lead to, so I find it hard to believe that you don't actually equate success with "betterness". Isn't that what being superior is all about?