Spink in Race Row

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It depends on your methods. Any reasonable person will agree that it's wrong to mistreat or reward someone purely because of the way they were born, but how far are you willing to go to stamp this out? Just about everyone discriminates in all kinds of unfair ways, consciously and unconsciously, so it's possible to grant yourself all kinds of powers over people's lives in the name of 'fighting discrimination'. Personally, I would like to see race-neutral policies promoted as the ideal.

Then practice what you preach, and stop dropping in your baseless accusations about the genetic criminality of the black race. You've hardly been race-neutral in this thread and many others, have you? Hypocrite.

No, but Noel suggests 'abolishing the white race', which singles out whites as the problem. Can't you see the problem with that?

Would you like to try taking up this conversation with someone who actually values his opinions? I don't. He's so wrapped up in race issues that he can't think outside the box, leading him to blinkered conclusions on issues that extend far beyond race conflict. That makes him a failure as an academic commentator in my eyes.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Then practice what you preach, and stop dropping in your baseless accusations about the genetic criminality of the black race. You've hardly been race-neutral in this thread and many others, have you? Hypocrite.

Being race-neutral does not mean ignoring the possibility that genes may play a role in human behaviour. There's no hypocrisy on my part because I want everyone on this planet to treat people as individuals - just as I do. I would be a hypocrite if I wanted everyone else to pretend that genetic influence is impossible, while I continued to believe it a factor. I do practice what I preach.

You accuse me of 'casting aspersions' on blacks. This is because you are focusing on one aspect of the way I view the world - that genes influence human behaviour in addition to the environment. I also believe males are more prone to criminality than females - is this 'casting aspersions' on men? Just because something may turn out to be negative, doesn't mean we should resist considering it. Remember, your 100% environment assertion is also unsubstantiated. Should the fact that it 'sounds nicer' make it more valid? My opinions on the causes of black criminality are not the result of some deep-seated hatred - it's just the way I see things.

If tomorrow it were proven 100% conclusively that genes play no role in behaviour, it wouldn't change my actions towards others. I would still endeavor to treat people as individuals, just as I do now. I would hope that if tomorrow it were proven to your satisfaction that genes play a role in black (and all human) behaviour, you would still treat them as individuals.

I think we want pretty much the same things Laz - treat everyone as individuals, and try to give everyone an equal opportunity to prove themselves. All I ask is that you consider the possibility that you may be wrong on the 100% environment thing, and not expect equal opportunity to necessarily lead to equal outcomes. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

Would you like to try taking up this conversation with someone who actually values his opinions? I don't. He's so wrapped up in race issues that he can't think outside the box, leading him to blinkered conclusions on issues that extend far beyond race conflict. That makes him a failure as an academic commentator in my eyes.

I can only assume you've changed your mind then, because I distinctly remember you making approving noises about his theories when someone posted a thread on them a while back.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia

I think we want pretty much the same things Laz - treat everyone as individuals, and try to give everyone an equal opportunity to prove themselves.

THEN WHY IN THE NAME OF HADES DO YOU PERSIST IN THESE UNSUBSTANTIATED ARGUMENTS THAT THE ENTIRE BLACK RACE HAS A GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR?

I can only assume you've changed your mind then, because I distinctly remember you making approving noises about his theories when someone posted a thread on them a while back.

Hitler once had a good idea about car design and ownership. Does that mean I approve of his works? Nope.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


THEN WHY IN THE NAME OF HADES DO YOU PERSIST IN THESE UNSUBSTANTIATED ARGUMENTS THAT THE ENTIRE BLACK RACE HAS A GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR?

It's not quite that simple, but I've already explained why I think the way I do. Your side is also unsubstantiated, so in the end it's all opinion. Neither of us is an expert on genetics, and questions of genetics should hold no moral baggage. Either genes work a certain way or they don't. It's nothing to get all lathered up about - especially considering we agree on the ethical treatment of our fellow man. You need to seperate the issue of genetics from the issue of morality if you want to understand me.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You need to seperate your head from your anus if you want to be understood. Ethical treatment of fellow men cannot be squared with unsubstantiated accusations of criminal tendencies.

Of course, you used to claim that you couldn't be accused of racism because what you were proposing was scientific fact. I note that argument has been dropped.

[Caligastia]

Because I'm not a geneticist, and don't have proof of my opinion, just as you don't have proof of yours.

This is a nature v nurture question that can only be answered through scientific inquiry. It's hardly a settled matter, and only a closed-minded ideologue would take an extreme position (100% nurture) without proof and denigrate as morally inferior anyone who dared to suggest otherwise. You're like the Christians of old who were enraged when Copernicus suggested that the Earth was not the centre of the universe - bound by your ideology. You need to try and think outside your little egalitarian box and consider the possibility that nature doesn't work like that.

Verily, I say unto you, first remove the head and shoulders from thine own anus.

[Arrian]

Yeah, because claiming that black people are more likely to commit crimes because of some inherent genetic fault without evidence thereof is exactly the same as responding to such a claim by asserting that it's bollocks and its purveyors are bigots.

You're not fooling anyone, Cali. Except, perhaps, yourself (unclear).

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

No, it isn't the same, and that isn't what I'm claiming.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You're unbelievable, Cal. Do you really think you've got the right to sling around racist crap without opprobrium simply because nobody's proved that all humanity is equal in all respects?

Originally posted by Caligastia
Because I'm not a geneticist, and don't have proof of my opinion, just as you don't have proof of yours.

I don't need it. I'm not the one getting upset about getting called a racist.

You're like the Christians of old who were enraged when Copernicus suggested that the Earth was not the centre of the universe - bound by your ideology. You need to try and think outside your little egalitarian box and consider the possibility that nature doesn't work like that.

And you're like every other white supremacist turd who tries to pass off pseudo-science as a justification for racial slanders. Copernicus backed up his theories. You don't.

Verily, I say unto you, first remove the head and shoulders from thine own anus.

Go on. Explain why I'm required to justify not slinging about racial slanders.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Are you comfortable with being known as "Cal the racist"? How do you think you got that reputation?

[Fake Boris]

You compare yourself to Copernicus now?

[Caligastia]

So, Laz, when is it permissable to speculate that a particular group's behaviour may have a genetic component? Only when the behaviour is positive? How do you feel about the idea that male criminality has a genetic component? Is it sexist to suggest this?

[Solly]

Cali,

It's obviously their socio-economic status.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
So, Laz, when is it permissable to speculate that a particular group's behaviour may have a genetic component?

A geneticist might need a hypothesis to test, a layman does not. (Though even then the geneticist still shouldn't be dealing with "race" or other nebulous labels, but rather specific genes.)

What are you going to do with your speculation in this case anyways? Advise people to change their "race"? Your speculation about racial disposition towards crime gives no useful information, and all it achieves is to promote inflamatory and devisive rhetoric.

Only when the behaviour is positive? How do you feel about the idea that male criminality has a genetic component?

I'm not sure how it works on a genetic level, but being male has been linked to having higher levels of hormones that lead to aggression. Not all males (or females) have the same hormonal levels though, so pretending gender is the cause is still ignorant.

Not to mention it's pointless, as gender is not something you can "treat". The facilitator of aggression is the hormone level, and you can treat that, so it's useful. Diet, exercise, and drugs all have been shown to affect those hormone levels, and that information allows us the potential to treat the problems. But it still has to be diagnosed on an individual basis.

If there is a genetic reason identified for the hormone level, that would provide useful information as well, for identifying and potentially (genetic engineering) fixing the root cause.

Is it sexist to suggest this?

Being "ist" just means you apply stereotypes to people instead of actually dealing with individuals. You've said you treat people as individuals, but it's obviously not the case when you are supporting stereotypes that ignores the individual's actual qualities.