Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Not The Guardian, Jan 30, 2014.
OK. There is more genetic variation within chimps and humans than between them.
5) Richard Lewontin
"Richard Lewontin is a Marxist Jew who has dedicated his career to attacking genetics as an explanation for human variation. He co-authored a silly book called Not In Our Genes along with some other nutty Marxist Jew." Claimed "more genetic variation within groups than between invalidates the race concept" despite the fact there is more variation within some species than between.
Says the guy who points his fingers at scholars and says "Look there's a Jewish fraud!" as if being Jewish were a marker of innate dishonesty. The blog is run by a racist who misrepresents research on MAOA to suit his racist agenda. Why not quote the actual study rather than a blogger's opinion if you think your point is valid?
What a load of crap. How else would one explain human variation except through genetics? Clearly Lewontin didn't say this. You could say he attacked the existence of biological races among humans but not genetics as an explanation for human variation. That is ridiculous.
Communists tend to explain variation through some kind of vague 'oppression' of farmers by teachers and scientists and other obvious bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
No we establish they are a lying fraud independently. I have said this many times but of course that doesn't gel with the lying slander you always resort to.
The genetic differences within Northern Europeans is greater than the differences between Northern Europeans (whites) and West Africans (blacks).
As also noted there are very few Americans that are exclusively of West African descent so the gene pool is so mixed as to become irrelevant in the United States.
Finally none of the genetic "traits" listed have any real bearing on anything of significance. For example there has been no differences associated with human intellegence between Northern Europeans (whites) and West Africans (blacks) by the APA. There is certianly no reason to believe one is superior or inferior to the other and there is no argument at all that supports racism that denies equality based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
LoL. That's called the Lewontin fallacy. If you think any method of measuring genetic variability/diversity is going to show a native German is closer to a Nigerian than his neighbor, then I suggest you get your head examined.
There's no significant difference in intelligence between Whites and Blacks?
Oh, so you'll show which study shows that, and how this pans out in the real world?
Actually anyone with half a brain would realize that the argument is based on a logical fallacy. If it's racist then it has a prejudiced point of view which will skew its findings to promote a predetermined narrative. It's the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect.
How can you prove a 'racist' view is more prejudiced than a 'non-racist' view?
Sounds like you're spewing nonsense and passing your beliefs off as facts.
Feel free to coherently rationalizing your claims.
You would have to begin with, at the very least, agreeing on the definition of words. (Which I doubt you would ever do). See? That is a prejudiced view on my part is it not? Prejudice means to pre-judge. It's a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. But...the difference here is that my preconceived opinion can be changed once I get more information that demonstrates I was wrong or making a hasty generalization. The racist doesn't prejudge based on information or lack of it. It's based on genetics. You may have a prejudice toward liberals or conservatives, but that's just an attitude about how somebody thinks. A person can change how they think, but they can't change the color of their skin. That makes a racist prejudice completely irrational, since no amount of information will change somebody's skin color. It's based on physical characteristics. All tall people are evil. All blue eyed people are Nazi's. All left handed people communists. That kind of prejudice cannot be reasoned with.
That was a lot of garbage.
How do you plan on proving racists are more prejudicial than non-racists, again?
Do you want to address brain volume differences between Blacks and Whites?
Or, let me guess, you'll ignore evidence, as per usual. Cuz that what non-prejudiced people do, right?
Actually it was a lot of truth. Did I or did I not take a prejudice position toward you regarding your agreeing on definitions? Don't bother answering, we both know that I did. Does the word prejudice mean to pre-judge? Is prejudice not a pre-conceived opinion? Yes...more truth. Is your mind open enough to be persuaded by fact? Is it open enough to accept a theory being demonstrably falsified by logic? If you can say yes, then the prejudice you may have toward a certain idea can be changed by the truth. So what is more important to you; your ideology, or the truth? If you cannot be persuaded by the truth, then truth is not a value that you hold as important as the maintaining of your ideology.
The racist doesn't prejudge based on information that can be acquired, and theories that can be tested. He prejudges based on genetics. On Race. That's where the term racist comes from in case you didn't know. You can't debate the color of your skin. It's not something you have any control over. And that kind of prejudice cannot be reasoned with. And once again...not garbage. Just the truth.
That was just explained to you. All things being equal, the racist holds one more prejudice than the non-racist, and it's an irrational one. Why are you defending racism, if you aren't a racist?
Why would I be interested in pseudo-science? It is easy to think of these theories of yours as very successful sciences if one assumed that scientific knowledge proceeds, and is justified, by the accumulation of positive instances of theories and laws. The problem,as far as I'm concerned, is that it is just too easy to accumulate positive instances which support some theory you have regarding racial superiority, especially when the theory is so general in its claims that its seems not to rule anything out. Theories that seem to have great explanatory power are suspect precisely because so much can be explained by them. Similarly, many adherents of Marxism and psychoanalysis are over-impressed with explanatory power and see
confirmations everywhere. The complaint then is that the central principles of these theories are so general as to be compatible with any particular observations and too many of those who believe them cannot even imagine circumstances under which they would be empirically refuted because they are like a lens through which they view the world. If you are in the grip of a theory it is easy to find confirming instances, especially if the theory is one that is vague and general. If it's truth that I'm after, I'm not going to look for confirmation of a theory. I'll look for how it can be falsified. But the theory MUST be falsifiable. If it's not, then it's metaphysical and not part of a logical or scientific discussion.
The evidence that you offered was falsified. Don't look to science to justify racism. It's not going to give you what you want.
Feel free proving MRI studies measuring brain volume differences between Blacks and Whites is pseudo-science.
Sounds like you're doing my job refuting your position for me.
Anything that anybody says regarding your scientific racism as pseudo-science is going to provoke that kind of response from a person that is devoted to proving that his own racism has a logical basis to it. Racism is a prejudice and prejudice is an emotion. It's an appeal to the gut. Not the intellect. What you're doing, and have been doing, is looking for a scientific justification for your gut reactions. The gut is a moron, as anyone that's ever tossed a golf club, punched a wall, or kicked a lawn mower knows. The gut is the repository of dark and ancient fears. It knows what it knows because it knows how it feels. Intellect is pitted against feeling on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It's pitted against character because it's widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly or the diabolical. It's a clear example of the right wing antagonism toward science with regard to climate change, while at the same time, attempting to use science to justify creationism as valid, as well as a scientific justification for racism. They use science to drive an agenda. If something "feels" right, it must be given the same respect given to something that actually IS right. If something is felt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument, or more to the point, people willing to take up two sides to every argument, they both must be right, or at least equally valid. So amazingly, those on the right, that insist on objective truth, do everything in their power to demonstrate they're actually relativists that don't believe in truth at all. If both sides of an argument are true, then there is no truth. A relativist may or may not like diversity. But he cannot think that he can learn the truth from others, because there is really no truth in his universe to learn. This is why relativists can talk about diverse forms of life, paradigms, and linguistic frameworks while simultaneously denying the possibility of understanding them—let alone of comparing them critically in an effort to discover which of them is true.
Many people today say that truth is relative, but most of them do not really believe what they say. When you question them, you typically find that it is not really truth that they think is relative, but our knowledge or beliefs about what is true.
Identity philosophers, (and I'd put you in that grouping) on the other hand, may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group (racial, ethnic or political) to which they belong. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts—so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance.
You don't find truth by piling on examples that you think give credence to your argument. That's just inductive reasoning which never proves anything. You look for the errors that would falsify the argument. When an argument rests on a falsehood, the argument collapses and what's left is the truth, and the greatest truth at that moment is in knowing that the theory is false and can be dumped. If you want to see a mans face, first remove the mask. We find truth by removing those things that obscure it from our view. Of course, that only has meaning to those who value truth over their ideology.
So, what you're trying to belch out is that anything that disputes your prejudiced irrational anti-racist views is automatically wrong, because it's 'racist'.
Yes. Except that there is nothing irrational in holding anti-racist views. Racism itself is irrational. Racism is intolerance. Why would I tolerate the very thing that threatens tolerance? Would you tolerate a Hitler. Do you think his racism was justified? If you think that there is a scientific justification for racism, then you'd have to conclude that Hitler was justified in doing what he did. Then genocide is justifiable as well. You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you.... It is the same with tolerance. You must not, without qualification, accept the principle of tolerating all those who are intolerant; if you do, you will destroy not only yourself, but also the attitude of tolerance. Why? Because Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
As long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Some people think that there is a contradiction in this—if not in the idea of the tolerant refusing to tolerate the intolerant, then at least in the idea that they may suppress some instances of intolerance while being willing to tolerate others. But the paradox of tolerance is not that the tolerant are being intolerant when they refuse to tolerate intolerance. It is that they may, by being too tolerant, unwittingly promote intolerance in others—and with it their own demise. This, I think, enables us to see what is really at stake when it comes to tolerance. The intolerant would forcibly restrict our freedom because of who we are, or because of what we believe and say. And there is no point appealing to reason or talking about contradictions when it comes to this. We must claim the right to forcibly oppose their intolerance if we are to keep any rights at all. However, if we risk our freedom by tolerating the intolerant, we also risk it by suppressing them. There is no algorithm or general rule that can tell us when the risks of suppressing the intolerant outweigh the risks of tolerating them. We must, on the contrary, decide in each individual case whether and to what extent we should tolerate the intolerant. There is, insofar as this is concerned, no contradiction in our decision to exercise our rights in some cases and not in others—anymore than there is a contradiction in a decision to marry one person and not another. We may run a serious risk of actually losing our freedom if we tolerate those who would take it away. And that of course would be intolerable.Tolerance is putting up with things that we do not like and with things that we think might even be evil. It is good to tolerate others, if tolerating others does not threaten our own freedom. And we would like, if nothing else, for others to tolerate us. Tolerance, thus understood, is the ideal of that so-called ‘negative’ freedom, or freedom from coercion, which asks for nothing more than that we leave each other alone. And tolerance, for this reason, should always be our first priority so long as there are intolerant people in the world who are persecuting others for their religious beliefs or for their ethnic and racial heritages or for simply being ‘different’. It is, in the face of intolerance, a necessary condition for the freedom of anyone who would be persecuted without it. But it is still, for all that, a minimum condition.
Tolerance is a negative attitude. We put up with. We endure. We suffer. We try not to suppress or to persecute. We restrain ourselves from eliminating what we would otherwise eliminate were it not for our feeling that we ought to be tolerant. Respect, on the other hand, is a positive attitude. We consider. We appreciate. We take seriously, value, and perhaps admire. We may, indeed, even try to emulate and to model ourselves upon those whom we respect. These are different attitudes, and they lead to different actions. Tolerance leads to our allowing differences to exist. But respect leads to our trying to learn from them.
So basically observing human differences or having racial preferences = 'racism' = being exactly the same as Hitler. And also we should 'tolerate' all things.
Uhh, no. Just no.
Apparently you misread what I posted. That's not even close to what I said. Do you have reading comprehension issues? I did NOT say that we should tolerate all things. And observing human differences isn't the problem. The problem is in thinking that it matters.
Why are you defending racism?
It doesn't matter Blacks have inherently lower IQ than Whites?
Then end affirmative action. It shouldn't matter that Blacks can't graduate medical school in proportion to their population since these differences don't matter.
According to who?
What does affirmative action have to do with this? AA is a response to the very racism that you've been promoting. If it weren't for the racist bigots in this country there would never have been a reason for AA in the first place. You have nothing to offer here but your bigotry, and you've painted yourself into a corner that you can't get out of now.
You said observing human differences doesn't matter.
Perhaps you should stay plugged in to the discussion.
So, if there are likely inherent differences in cognitive ability between Blacks and Whites, then it shouldn't matter.
Actually, affirmative action is a response to the fact Blacks cannot compete with Whites.
That's why East Asians are actually more discriminated against than Whites by affirmative action.
Strange how that fact torpedoes your argument that AA is about reversing past injustice.
How is giving Whites an advantage over East Asians via AA rectifying past injustices, again?
Oh, right, it isn't.
Separate names with a comma.