Spink in Race Row

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
The burden of proof is on those who want to make further distinctions amongst humans.

Because you say so?
The vast majority of humans divide themselves as such, and always have, so the burden of proof should be on those who claim there are no major differences.

I've thoroughly explained my position on how I used the term racist. I will further point out that I have not called anyone racist, in spite of your insinuations to the contrary. I have identified a type of action as racist, and even gone so far as to say that probably everyone is to some extent racist in that light. That itself should have made things clear as to how I am using the term.

"Everyone" being a set which includes myself. Do you really think that in light of such a statement on my part that I am "attacking" everyone including myself? I am using the term in a technically correct manner to help illustrate the implications of what we say. I make no argument that such a term carries no derogatory implication with it, and only ask that those who make correlations between race and crime accept that those claims have similarly derogatory implications.

It could be argued that the 'environment only' perspective is also derogatory.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Because you say so?

No, because I haven't said "so". We have agreed that people are all humans. That is what I have stated. Since we both accept it, no proof is necessary. It is a given.

I don't need to prove my stance to you, that we are all humans, because we have already both accepted it.

The vast majority of humans divide themselves as such, and always have, so the burden of proof should be on those who claim there are no major differences.

If you want to make a further distinction that would be considered valid, show your evidence. Truth is not democratic.

I'm not trying to disprove race. So why should I try to prove a statement that I haven't made? I view humans as humans in cases where there is no evidence for further differentiation, that is sufficient for me. You can view them how you will as well. But the point is, when you accept racial differentiation without actual genetic proof of such an assertion's validity, you are making a racist assumption.

It could be argued that the 'environment only' perspective is also derogatory.

False dichotomy. Just because I don't accept your unsupported assertion that race is a factor in crime doesn't mean that I deny any potential genetic factors in crime. You haven't even shown genetic evidence to support a distinction by race, yet now you are making the insinuation (I'm sure unwittingly) that race is the only genetic distinction.

I didn't say that it was environment only. To quote myself, "There is genetic variation within humanity. No one is claiming we are all the same genetically."

Learn to read.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh look. I take a few weeks off at Poly, and Cali's still posting the same old crap.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson
If you want to make a further distinction that would be considered valid, show your evidence. Truth is not democratic.

I'm not trying to disprove race. So why should I try to prove a statement that I haven't made? I view humans as humans in cases where there is no evidence for further differentiation, that is sufficient for me. You can view them how you will as well. But the point is, when you accept racial differentiation without actual genetic proof of such an assertion's validity, you are making a racist assumption.

Are you saying that you don't accept race as a valid concept unless there is genetic evidence?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Oh look. I take a few weeks off at Poly, and Cali's still posting the same old crap.

What is your problem?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Are you saying that you don't accept race as a valid concept unless there is genetic evidence?

I am (and have repeatedly been) saying that in the absense of evidence, I do not take a stance on whether race is a valid concept or not.

If it helps you understand what I am saying, consider me agnostic on race. In the absense of evidence, I would not take a hard stance on race being a valid or invalid concept. It is unknown. But even if I do not take a hard stance as to whether race exists or not, I do not accept unsupported assertions about race as valid arguments.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson


I am (and have repeatedly been) saying that in the absense of evidence, I do not take a stance on whether race is a valid concept or not.

If it helps you understand what I am saying, consider me agnostic on race. In the absense of evidence, I would not take a hard stance on race being a valid or invalid concept. It is unknown. But even if I do not take a hard stance as to whether race exists or not, I do not accept unsupported assertions about race as valid arguments.

Fair enough, but I'd still like to know what you would consider to be evidence of race. What is your criteria for accepting race as a valid concept?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia


What is your problem?

No problem at all. To describe it as a "problem" would indicate that it was in some way challenging, which it isn't.

1- You have no idea how many crimes are committed.

2- You don't know who's committing most of them.

3- You have no means of satisfactorily eliminating skewing factors in the very long and vulnerable series of stages that lead to conviction.

4- You cannot distinguish "genetic factors" from envionmental ones.

Given the above, your continued straining erection for the supposed "Negro Crime Gene" has to viewed as really rather baffling. Now try coming up with something I haven't punched whopping great holes in many times before.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Aeson

When you state a correlation between race and crime, you are making an implication that there is a reason to state a correlation between race and crime.

You're wrong.
You're just used that most people who state correlations ALSO use them as correlations, but there is no reason it has to be that way.


Statisticians "find" correlations all the time. (Note the use of the word find, as correlations are neutral)

And yet, they consider it VERY important not to implictly see them as a reason, as a causation to be precise.


Just because YOU want stated correlations to always hide causation in the speaker's mind shouldn't stop statisticians throughout the world from doing their job to please your fancies.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Whats wrong in acknowledging non europeans are most often lactose intolerant?
Even if it is a racial difference, I dont see anything wrong with it

Most lactose intolerance isn't genetic but instead is a result of the environment (though some is genetic). In east Asia few people traditionally ate any dairy past childhood nursing (the exception being some Mongolians and Tibetians who practiced animal herding and dairying). Adult bodies typically turn off the production of the enzyme to digest lactose unless lactose remains a significant part of the diet. Thus adults from countries which eat lots of dairy products generally aren't lactose intolerant but adults who don't eat dairy are.

The real proof that most of it isn't generic is when people move from an area where most people are lactose intolerant to a country were most people eat dairy. The adults will remain lactose intolerant but their children will normally not be since they're raised on a diet which includes lots of dairy. Take for example Chinese-Americans who grow up in the US; adults in China are mostly lactose intolerant while this kids normally aren't. That's just the human body adapting to the common food sources even though the genes shared by the two populations are almost the same.

[Aeson]

That's actually a rather tough question to answer, as the term race is tied to rather nebulous distinctions, other than appearance. I don't buy that appearance is a depiction of race, even though it is genetically defined, because it is clear that appearance graduates across "races" and in "inter-racial" breeding the lines between the "races" vanish completely. Appearances graduate across humanity, there are no clear lines to draw.

Basically, I would require a set of non-trivial genetic traits found exclusively within a segment of the population corresponding to historical application of "race". "Inter-racial" breeding would have no effect on those traits, either the progeny would be distinctly one "race" or another. Otherwise "inter-racial" breeding will have already blurred the lines between "race" to insignificance.

By "non-trivial", I would say a distinction that makes a clear impact on the suitability of a person towards specific and necessary tasks. (And even then "race" as an argument would only apply in regards to those tasks.)

I don't claim to be an expert on genetic matters, but I would be rather suprised if such a concrete distinction were found. The issue of "inter-racial" breeding seems to me to be the real kicker. But I could be wrong and there are a set of genetically dominant traits out there responsible for exclusive and non-trivial distinctions that wouldn't be affected by "inter-racial" breeding. (In which case, humanity will probably eventually all end up being that "race" anyways, which makes the whole point of making the distinction somewhat futile.)

[Provost Harrison]

Well it is genetic, as the result of selection pressures applied by their diet.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
You're wrong.
You're just used that most people who state correlations ALSO use them as correlations, but there is no reason it has to be that way.

You are taking the statement you quoted out of context.

Caligastia had pointed out (correctly) that by using the term "racism" there were implications made to the reader (whether intended or not). I responded that this is technically the same as stating correlations, there will be implications made to those you are stating the correlation to (whether intended or not).

You are agreeing with me on this point by providing a hypothetical example of a person who had read an implication into a statement. (Though you are incorrectly divining that the hypothetical is representative of my own reaction.)

Statisticians "find" correlations all the time. (Note the use of the word find, as correlations are neutral)

I very clearly said "state", not "find". This would denote that I am talking about "stating", and not "finding". Also noteworthy is that our discussion has decended from my original statement where "like this" was used, refering to the OP's subject. We are simply not talking about the same thing it would seem. My statements do not apply to the researcher who finds a correlation by looking at statistics. They are targetted at expressions ("like this") of those correlations.

Just because YOU want stated correlations to always hide causation in the speaker's mind shouldn't stop statisticians throughout the world from doing their job to please your fancies.

I don't want anything of the sort. If you wish to know what I do want, the appropriate action would be to ask me. Divination on your part is hardly worthwhile.

[Lul Thyme]

I don't think there is a huge difference between "stating" and "finding" like you say.
My point is that correlation are facts (what are
"Unsupported correlation" like in your second post btw?, doesn't even mean anything). Facts don't have intent.
Somebody stating facts MIGHT have intent, or might not.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Aeson


There is no need to bring race into it unless you think that there is a racial factor involved. So by bringing race into it at all, you are implying it is a factor.

If you are wondering whether race is a factor, you have to "bring it in" like you say.
It might turn out that it is not involved (note that this does not really dependant on the researcher or your opinion) but you had to check.

Testing whether "there is a racial factor involved" doesn't imply it is a factor.

By the way, if you feel I am misunderstanding your position, I would really like you explain it in a way you think I would understand better, if you can.