English town too disturbingly white

[C0ckney]

ok paik i'll bite, why is your racism different to other kinds?

[Bereta_Eder]

It isn't based on race (DNA, skin color, genes, "white", pureity of bloodline and other factors of western modern racism). Actually I don't think you can call it racism. You can't define it with western terms. It is more culturally, way of life and thinking oriented.
That's my opinion.

[C0ckney]

yeah but it's still the case that you (not just you personally) hate another group of people based on their ethnic backround. you might say that this is because of some 'past wrongs' or whatever, but my question is how is that different from someone who dislikes blacks because they 'commit more crime' for example.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Odin


1. Using many twins reduced the likelihood of that being the case.

Good evening, Odin. So do you actually know the studies that Caligastia was referring to? If so, please post a link or there's a danger people might think you're pulling this out of thin air.

In any event, they could have used a million sets of twins if they like, but that still doesn't get closer to determining whether behavioural traits are due to genetics or pre-natal nutiriotional/environmental factors, does it? Or dumb coincidence, as far as I can see. Feel free to elaborate.

2. see 1.

"See 1" is not an answer to this. Please give me examples from the research.

3. Most behavior is a mix of both genentic and enviromental influences, they are not an either/or proposition like some of the nurture fanatics (who tend to be hyper-leftie, politically correct social scientists) and Nature fanatics (which are usually racists and bigots, like Cali) think.

Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?

Also, I must correct Cali, it is INTELLIGENCE that is 50% genetics. And there is no evidence that the average of the genetic component differes from one ethnic group to another.

Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Good evening, Odin. So do you actually know the studies that Caligastia was referring to? If so, please post a link or there's a danger people might think you're pulling this out of thin air.

In any event, they could have used a million sets of twins if they like, but that still doesn't get closer to determining whether behavioural traits are due to genetics or pre-natal nutiriotional/environmental factors, does it? Or dumb coincidence, as far as I can see. Feel free to elaborate.



"See 1" is not an answer to this. Please give me examples from the research.



Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?



Again, how are you distinguishing genetic factors from environmental factors to reach that conclusion?

Why don't you read some books on the topic. Nature via Nurture, and The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature are a good place to start. You are making it sound like I am defending Cali, I'm not. Also, I get annoyed by the BS the Nurture partisans spew about Nature being deterministic; Nuture can be just as deterministic as nature is assumed to be. Behavior is much more complex than either side make it out to be.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by paiktis22
If one says that western modern racism was a predominantly english invention would he be right or wrong?

It doesn't matter what you say, you're not getting the Elgin Marbles back

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Odin


Why don't you read some books on the topic. Nature via Nurture, and The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature are a good place to start. You are making it sound like I am defending Cali, I'm not. Also, I get annoyed by the BS the Nurture partisans spew about Nature being deterministic; Nuture can be just as deterministic as nature is assumed to be. Behavior is much more complex than either side make it out to be.

I think you'll find that yourself and Caligastia are the ones who are misinterpreting it. So link the research (nothing too long, I don't have time for waffle) and I will evaluate it. Still sounds somewhat dodgy, and even dangerous. And whilst you're at it, do you have anything on holocaust denial?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by C0ckney
but my question is how is that different from someone who dislikes blacks because they 'commit more crime' for example.

because in western modern racist thought they (blakcs) are attributed "racially defined" flaws.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Odin


Why don't you read some books on the topic. Nature via Nurture, and The Blank Slate: the Modern Denial of Human Nature are a good place to start.

Assuming you've read those books, please enlighten me as to how they tackle my valid concerns detailed above. Otherwise you're asking me to pay for books I may well quickly establish to be deeply flawed.

I also note that the Amazon reviews on "The Blank Slate" attract no small amount of hilarity about the flawed science. It's not looking promising.

[Theben]

Originally posted by paiktis22

because in western modern racist thought they (blakcs) are attributed "racially defined" flaws.

What you do may not be 'racist', per se, but it is 'discrimination', and if you hold power over them, then it would become 'oppression'.


Anyway, wtf was you're original question?

[Theben]

Originally posted by paiktis22
If one says that western modern racism was a predominantly english invention would he be right or wrong?

Probably wrong... but racism/oppression/discrimination has been around so long it'd be hard to point to any individual or group since many if not all ethnicities have caused/received this in the past.

However, we're supposed to be a little more enlightened these days.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Theben


Probably wrong... but racism/oppression/discrimination has been around so long

I don't think that western modern racist theory is old. I think it is fairly recent. My opinion is that it started as a "connecting/unifying, separating of others, defining" pseudo-theory. A mythomotor like so many others and for similar reasons like those that exist since indeed very old times. Mythomotor is a "folkish tale" (meaning popularist and for the people) not necessairily based on historic or in this case scientific accuracy that folsters unity of "groups". Almost all countries/ communities have those when a need arose for some elements of the group to create one.

[Theben]

It would help if I had a definition for "western modern racist theory". IMO it evolved from pre-existing "theories".

[Agathon]

So where's "Coon-hatin' Cali" got to?

[Whaleboy]

I don't think any man or woman of reason could possibly argue with the simple fact that there are too many white people in the world.