Races

[Caladan]

i don't remeber which post, but at some point you kinda looked like you believed that blacks were better than whites even though you didn't actually say it

Mate, there is no way I could have said that. The entire theme of this thread has been people claiming that black people are somewhat undeserving of the term human, and me arguing otherwise.

 

[Caladan]

Been there done that ^.^ The only problem I find with your argument here is that this is ultimatemetal.com This is an ENGLISH speaking forum. ENGLISH discussion, as you say this is an english based world. I am not saying that non-english speaking people aren't clever etc etc, but we are discussing this here and now, thusly the person discussing has the burden of proof for their argument, plain and simple. In english. Also, if this were a mandarin based world, had I had the opportunity (which I understand not all africans have that opportunity, thats part of your point i think) I would have learned the language, barring that I would not be posting on mandarin based forums as they wouldn't understand me and vice versa. I would NOT be regarded as having insufficient proof just because I speak a different language. If I was making an argument, I WOULD be expected to do so in a manner that allows for mutual understanding (language) otherwise my argument is moot to begin with. On a mandarin speaking web-site that is.

How does this correlate to here? Well it seems that the people posting have at least a basic grasp of english, thusly they still have a burden of proof, if they wish to make an argument. Poor english or not. Agreed that the information MAY (or may not) exist (which is purely circumstantial until substantiated) despite a language or otherwise barrier, but the point is that if you cannot produce it to the debate, then the argument fails.


Not to be all matter of factly, but if you take a look at the scientific research that HAS been substantiated (I can try to find it if you wish) there is a GENERAL/average difference in cranial mass. (which differs slightly from 'size of head') To dismiss the argument just because you can produce an example contrary, is irrelevant, as it isn't regarded as a rule, and is merely statistical evidence, that is based on a test demographic.



I'm not sure what you are asking here. So they don't speak english, what bearing does that have? (am I missing something?) I thought we already got past the 'difference in IQ's' bit. (citing that it is not universal)



Once again it is not universal, but you seem to take many of the arguments here as if we/I are referring to them as altruisms. The logical flow then continues with you providing a singular (or otherwise) example, which you use to disregard the argument. The problem with this is that 1)they are not altruisms 2)they are based in scientific/medical research. Providing a singular 'real life' example can hardly derail such studies etc. 3)statistics are what they are, statistics. When you start to provide contradicting noted scientific and medical resources, then you have a case, until then its just personal speculation. A contrary example is not evidence.

Cheers

No no no no. I have continually argued against people's "scientific" methods here, continually argued for the biased environments under which this scientific observations were carried out. My use of the mandarin language was in response to your insistence that I wasn't providing the sort of proof you wanted. My point was that if you wanted proof it could be provided, but don't expect it to be in the same way your own proof has been provided. That was the same reason why I brought in people who don't speak english (mainly because in the western world, and indeed in many "scientific" tests, they would be rated below average). It's not about the language - though language tends to be different, I'm referring MAINLY to the cultural differences (as separate from differences in intellect or learnability).

Cranial mass? Is that really separate from the size of the head? How is that possible if I may ask? Unless I'm mistaken, the mass of the head is primarily the mass of the skull, seeing as bones weigh more than flesh. I'll be very interested in hearing how it is possible for a smaller head to have higher cranial mass. I asked in a different post how this research was done, where the "controlled" data was taken from, whether there were other external factors (diet, economic status) that could affect this data one way or another. In science (as different from demography) we have what is called a controlled environment, and satisfactory observations need to be carried out in a controlled environment. Do be aware though, I haven't quite dismissed the evidence, I'm merely questioning it, which also is quite a common process in science.

Honestly, I find little wrong with most of the things you say or quote, apart from the occasional times when you and I have gone on a tangent based on some misunderstanding of something or the other that you have said. There was that one time though when you mentioned "Ethnic Americans", something about you being interested about them, and I asked if you were referring to native americans (you never did respond to that one...)

 

[PhantoMPhones]

No no no no. I have continually argued against people's "scientific" methods here, continually argued for the biased environments under which this scientific observations were carried out. My use of the mandarin language was in response to your insistence that I wasn't providing the sort of proof you wanted. My point was that if you wanted proof it could be provided, but don't expect it to be in the same way your own proof has been provided. That was the same reason why I brought in people who don't speak english (mainly because in the western world, and indeed in many "scientific" tests, they would be rated below average). It's not about the language - though language tends to be different, I'm referring MAINLY to the cultural differences (as separate from differences in intellect or learnability).

Ok what my problem is with your 'disputes' of the 'scientific' methods, is either I've totally missed something, or your idea of dispute is merely questioning it. The problem is you are making conjectures about the evidence without providing your own evidence to back them up. If you can't provide evidence (in any form that you can provide SUBSTANTIATED evidence. Saying 'its not in the form you want' is no excuse for not having evidence.) then your conjectures and arguments carry no weight. Or else anyone would be able to say 'well I don't believe that your study was fair, or controlled' blah blah blah, but if you do not provide evidence to support that, then your argument fails. Can you provide any such evidence that DIRECTLY disputes federal crime statistics, prison crime rates, standardized test scores etc etc? Sure you are questioning 'science' but you are not providing 'science' of your own to provide proof. The rest of the scientific method is missing from your arguments.

On a note about cranial mass etc. All I'll say is that bone density and thickness of the cranium, among other more variable factors (size of the person, genetic predispositions *hint hint* etc) all play a role in determining cranial mass..... this is pretty much a tangent anyways because I did not say that a smaller head will commonly(if at all) result in a bigger mass, nor does it really contribute to the main argument anyhow. As I said, if you wish, I can try and dig up the studies for you. If you wish to dispute the studies, then you MUST provide studies or otherwise evidence of your own.

Please explain why they would test poorly in a western 'scientific' test, and why it can be explained away to nothing with 'cultural differences'. For the most part I haven't even been talking about 'tests' I've been talking about studies, research, things with medical/scientific data to back it up.

As for the native american thing, I live in Canada, and thusly I cannot speculate about native americans. I can however comment on native canadians based on my own experience. Of course I would care about them, the problem is they WILL NOT care about me (with exceptions of course, once again not an altruism) Native canadians are generally disliked among the majority canadian populous because they wish to take all the benefits from the government provided for them in a revolving door fashion, as in social welfare, free education, the freedom to make up their own laws separate from those of canadians, and having land that no other canadian is allowed to step foot on, without expressed permission (we can even be shot). All the meantime they want to bitch and complain that things aren't fair, the white man this the white man that and they CHOOSE to live on reserves, segregate themselves from the rest of society. SURE I care for native canadians, as soon as they join Canada.


Cheers mate, (not trying to anger you at all.)

 

[Caladan]

Right, I see your point. You want me to prove that the black man is the same as the white man. Okay, let's take a pool of middle-class black people - african immigrants here, not ancestral black americans. The reason for this choice is that they are less likely to be affected by the cultural baggage that affects the ancestral black americans. But this data has not been provided by anyone.

I'm not arguing that blacks are not more prone to commiting violent crimes than whites in present times, my argument is simply that this is a cultural phenomenom, not a genetic one. So the continued presentation of data and statistics on the thread in the name of science simply doesn't hold water to me because again, these statistics haven't taken into consideration my argument.

Sure I don't have evidence, you know why? I'm not here to prove anything. I am here disproving the notion that people who come from the land mass I come from are somehow inferior to others, based on their genes. I beleive the black man has underacheived, for some reason or the other, but not that he is unable to acheive, and destined to the back seat of mankind forever.

About the "scientific" (or IQ) test, I believe that these things are for a large part culturally biased. I have seen the results from IQ tests change. It is a well known fact that over the years, IQ can be seen to fluctuate. Also there is a tendency for your IQ tests scores to increase the more you take them. In other words, a person who can neither read nor write, nor has associated much with any form of western writing will be less likely to get any reasonable score in a paper based test. There are so many reasons why an IQ test is not a good measure of intelligence and learnability across so many different cultures.

In Canada. I beg to compare your friend getting killed to the native american (yes they are native americans too, I refer to America as a continent, not the USA) to the native americans reading about their whole people being wiped out by the coming of the "white man". Pray, tell me the difference between the current effect of multiculturalism and immigration that you complain about, and what happened with the native americans 500 years ago? You know, for all we know, in 500 years time, it may well be the white folks sitting around in reservations, lamenting the death of their way of life, and begging for handouts from the majority government/ culture of the day. That's extreme I know (seriously, I'm giggling here), but you never know.

 

[monoxide_child]

1) Right, I see your point. You want me to prove that the black man is the same as the white man. Okay, let's take a pool of middle-class black people - african immigrants here, not ancestral black americans. The reason for this choice is that they are less likely to be affected by the cultural baggage that affects the ancestral black americans. But this data has not been provided by anyone.

2) I'm not arguing that blacks are not more prone to commiting violent crimes than whites in present times, my argument is simply that this is a cultural phenomenom, not a genetic one. So the continued presentation of data and statistics on the thread in the name of science simply doesn't hold water to me because again, these statistics haven't taken into consideration my argument.

3) Sure I don't have evidence, you know why? I'm not here to prove anything. I am here disproving the notion that people who come from the land mass I come from are somehow inferior to others, based on their genes. I beleive the black man has underacheived, for some reason or the other, but not that he is unable to acheive, and destined to the back seat of mankind forever.

4) About the "scientific" (or IQ) test, I believe that these things are for a large part culturally biased. I have seen the results from IQ tests change. It is a well known fact that over the years, IQ can be seen to fluctuate. Also there is a tendency for your IQ tests scores to increase the more you take them. In other words, a person who can neither read nor write, nor has associated much with any form of western writing will be less likely to get any reasonable score in a paper based test. There are so many reasons why an IQ test is not a good measure of intelligence and learnability across so many different cultures.

5) In Canada. I beg to compare your friend getting killed to the native american (yes they are native americans too, I refer to America as a continent, not the USA) to the native americans reading about their whole people being wiped out by the coming of the "white man". Pray, tell me the difference between the current effect of multiculturalism and immigration that you complain about, and what happened with the native americans 500 years ago? You know, for all we know, in 500 years time, it may well be the white folks sitting around in reservations, lamenting the death of their way of life, and begging for handouts from the majority government/ culture of the day. That's extreme I know (seriously, I'm giggling here), but you never know.

1) black people in america act different than black people in africa, this is the result of white supremecy, we've already went over this

2)you're saying it's COMPLETELY cultural and someone else said it's COMPLETELY genetic, i disagree with both statements, to me it's very clearly a combination of the 2

3) black people are the backseat of mankind right now, hence the creation of this thread, the black community could change this, but it will take time, if a virus lethat to white people left the black people unafected and killed all the white americans within the next year, the black people would not ba able to have civilized society by themselves, it could happen, but not with the current values/morality/ethics of the black american culture as it exists today

4) in American made IQ tests they sometimes give a string of letters in alphabetical order and you have to re-arrange the letters to spell a word, one such sequence is A-C-O-T, in the "Northern" states the "correct" answer is the word "coat" but in the "Southern" states the "correct" answer is "taco"
my point here is that the inteligence tests created in USA are regionally/culturally biased, someone from another region/culture will fail the test

5) there are white people who really believe this scenario is actually going to happen, and they are very anti-hispanic because of this paranoid fear of latino becoming the dominant culture in america

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Right, I see your point. You want me to prove that the black man is the same as the white man. Okay, let's take a pool of middle-class black people - african immigrants here, not ancestral black americans. The reason for this choice is that they are less likely to be affected by the cultural baggage that affects the ancestral black americans. But this data has not been provided by anyone

Incorrect. I am not asking or demanding you prove that whites are the same as black, because I'm telling you they aren't(imho,and not insinuiating inferiority or anything, just to put it in a few words, which isn't the focus of my debate anyways). I am putting forth data that gives indications of genetic or otherwise (cultural etc, which is a fucking poor excuse for some of the things you are trying to blame on it) behaviours etc etc etc (all the shit being argued). You are disputing it, but you aren't backing it up. It has nothing to do with proving whites and blacks are the same.

Sure I don't have evidence, you know why? I'm not here to prove anything. I am here disproving the notion that people who come from the land mass I come from are somehow inferior to others, based on their genes. I beleive the black man has underacheived, for some reason or the other, but not that he is unable to acheive, and destined to the back seat of mankind forever.

In order to disprove something (logical fallacy btw) you still require proof. All you are doing is trying to sew a seed of doubt in the arguments. Effectively you are just saying 'I think you're wrong', but you aren't proving it. Also, I NEVER EVER said that all of x (what we are discussing) is 100% genetic. Nowhere have I stated such a preposterous idea. Though we COULD make another debate arguing the role of genetics in the creation of culture.

About the "scientific" (or IQ) test, I believe that these things are for a large part culturally biased. I have seen the results from IQ tests change. It is a well known fact that over the years, IQ can be seen to fluctuate. Also there is a tendency for your IQ tests scores to increase the more you take them. In other words, a person who can neither read nor write, nor has associated much with any form of western writing will be less likely to get any reasonable score in a paper based test. There are so many reasons why an IQ test is not a good measure of intelligence and learnability across so many different cultures.

So basically you are saying that just because someone does not possess the necessary skills to survive in X culture, doesn't mean they are less intelligent (or w.e) if they possess other skills that allow them to flourish in their own culture? If I am correct in saying that (let me know if I'm off base) then we need to create two different streams of discussions, separating african americans and other africans (including jamaicans), or else all discussion falls apart, because you use one do disprove the other and vice versa. Sorry mate, that doesn't fly.

In Canada. I beg to compare your friend getting killed to the native american (yes they are native americans too, I refer to America as a continent, not the USA) to the native americans reading about their whole people being wiped out by the coming of the "white man". Pray, tell me the difference between the current effect of multiculturalism and immigration that you complain about, and what happened with the native americans 500 years ago? You know, for all we know, in 500 years time, it may well be the white folks sitting around in reservations, lamenting the death of their way of life, and begging for handouts from the majority government/ culture of the day. That's extreme I know (seriously, I'm giggling here), but you never know.

not sure where you were getting at about my friend, that wasn't a murder based on conquering a nation. I'll just ignore that part.... Even IF IF IF we ASSUME that the effect would be the same as in the example of white man vs native american (which btw i have to say I don't know many people who correctly use the term american, so kudos there, what I was doing was trying to illustrate the difference between native americans in canada and native americans in the USA because I do not know much about those issues in the states.) and white man vs the now immigration etc, heres the perspective;

Europeans that settled the americas = the strong survive, to the victor go the spoils etc etc etc. When europeans came over, they came SPECIFICALLY to colonize, conquer and conquest. Just as hundreds of cultures have done in the past. (and nobody much is complaining about being Roman, now are they?) PRESENT DAY, it isn't a force of culture/race conquesting another race (which = war) but it is a gradual debilitation of the nation itself by immigrants (not all of course) emigrating from their country, and committing crime, sucking off social assistance (I can provide stats if you wish) and subverting the culture, IN ADDITION to the internal problems of the nation. Thusly, it would be natural for the presiding race to be pretty pissed off about it, if per capita the problems get worse. (for those who give a damn only... Its like the whole if you don't vote you have no right to bitch about politics thing)considering the government isn't even looking after its own population correctly. However due to affirmative action etc etc, the government is ALLOWING even FACILITATING such things, and OPRESSING those presiding people of the nation, who disagree. In effect we are being conquered without even being able to lift a finger against it. which is greatly different from the previous example. If I/we were allowed to fight for what I/we believe, then if I was conquered it would be because I/we were weaker/weaker race. Thusly it would be just another conquering and a new presiding culture, with now my culture on the sidelines being the conquered (now passing into fading history). Would we be bitching and moaning like we had sand in our vagina about our country being lost? Sure. But it doesn't change anything. Almost any other culture on the planet would not give in and allow their now presiding culture to be tainted. (look at other countries' immigration policies if you don't believe me)

I'm just sick of hearing other races bitch to the white man that they are evil and owe them something. If you were conquered I'm sorry, thats the way of nature or at the very least, the way of history. Me being hundreds of years away from those events, DONT OWE YOU (the other races) A GOOD GOD DAMN THING. Where your race is now is due to a failing of that race to pull together AS A RACE AND DEFEND THEMSELVES! THIS IS WHY CULTURES DISAPPEAR, and its been happening for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! why should I feel sorry for anyone? if the same happened to my race, why should anyone feel sorry for me? And if you look at many of the races out there who hold a grudge against my race (Africans included)(not altruistically mind you) they WOULDNT feel sorry for my race, and would make NO effort to help my race. Thats the way it is. A grudge isn't even required. It only takes another race becoming dominant, period. Im sick of hearing about fairness equality and all that other shit when my race is the only one held to those standards because we conquered most of the world. STOP bitching, take a look at your surroundings, and either decide to remove yourself from those surroundings in the belief that you can make it on your own somewhere else, ORRRRR pick up your fucking slack (however unfair or hard it is) and GET ON WITH LIFE.

I'm white, this is a white founded nation, if I get knocked down my government/people won't come to my rescue. Theres no 'white' education funds or white specific aid, white outreach, IN MY OWN COUNTRY! Even say 3rd generation african-canadians/americans will get special treatment despite being well established within the culture (like a 'native' white) over a white person. Like for fuck sakes it asks on pretty much every job application, loan application, bursary application if you consider yourself a visible minority. what the fuck is that bs.


(btw everywhere I have said 'you' but have not adressed you personally, I am merely using 'you' to refer to people who are not of my culture within the specifications I have given within the sentence. This does NOT mean anyone not of my colour as Africans etc that are 3rd generation for example are established canadians. I am not using 'you' in any kind of an accusatory, demeaning or patronizing manner)

cheers


BTW i just wanted to say, that none of this is said with hatred or anger in my heart. Most people describe me as having a problem of caring too much about things and people etc. What I have written is expression of frustration that stems from my perspective of failure to heed and take into consideration those universal factors. Especially when it forces me to live in an unconducive environment. (a bit ironic actually)

 

[razoredge]

Right, I see your point. You want me to prove that the black man is the same as the white man. Okay, let's take a pool of middle-class black people - african immigrants here, not ancestral black americans. The reason for this choice is that they are less likely to be affected by the cultural baggage that affects the ancestral black americans. But this data has not been provided by anyone.

I'm not arguing that blacks are not more prone to commiting violent crimes than whites in present times, my argument is simply that this is a cultural phenomenom, not a genetic one. So the continued presentation of data and statistics on the thread in the name of science simply doesn't hold water to me because again, these statistics haven't taken into consideration my argument.

Sure I don't have evidence, you know why? I'm not here to prove anything. I am here disproving the notion that people who come from the land mass I come from are somehow inferior to others, based on their genes. I beleive the black man has underacheived, for some reason or the other, but not that he is unable to acheive, and destined to the back seat of mankind forever.

About the "scientific" (or IQ) test, I believe that these things are for a large part culturally biased. I have seen the results from IQ tests change. It is a well known fact that over the years, IQ can be seen to fluctuate. Also there is a tendency for your IQ tests scores to increase the more you take them. In other words, a person who can neither read nor write, nor has associated much with any form of western writing will be less likely to get any reasonable score in a paper based test. There are so many reasons why an IQ test is not a good measure of intelligence and learnability across so many different cultures.

In Canada. I beg to compare your friend getting killed to the native american (yes they are native americans too, I refer to America as a continent, not the USA) to the native americans reading about their whole people being wiped out by the coming of the "white man". Pray, tell me the difference between the current effect of multiculturalism and immigration that you complain about, and what happened with the native americans 500 years ago? You know, for all we know, in 500 years time, it may well be the white folks sitting around in reservations, lamenting the death of their way of life, and begging for handouts from the majority government/ culture of the day. That's extreme I know (seriously, I'm giggling here), but you never know.

Im with ya, Im a bit too buzzed to say much, thank god but I would like to say, beside the fact that I hope the once great white American boy and girl lives on, I think the mistake the natives made was not killing eveyone that ever came over on a ship. Still that was then, and many of us did connect with the natives, I would have been one. None the less, Im totally ANTI immigration of any form. Including products. I would slam the door so hard it would cause tsunamis in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Mexico that would drown them all

 

[Caladan]

Incorrect. I am not asking or demanding you prove that whites are the same as black, because I'm telling you they aren't(imho,and not insinuiating inferiority or anything, just to put it in a few words, which isn't the focus of my debate anyways). I am putting forth data that gives indications of genetic or otherwise (cultural etc, which is a fucking poor excuse for some of the things you are trying to blame on it) behaviours etc etc etc (all the shit being argued). You are disputing it, but you aren't backing it up. It has nothing to do with proving whites and blacks are the same.



In order to disprove something (logical fallacy btw) you still require proof. All you are doing is trying to sew a seed of doubt in the arguments. Effectively you are just saying 'I think you're wrong', but you aren't proving it. Also, I NEVER EVER said that all of x (what we are discussing) is 100% genetic. Nowhere have I stated such a preposterous idea. Though we COULD make another debate arguing the role of genetics in the creation of culture.




So basically you are saying that just because someone does not possess the necessary skills to survive in X culture, doesn't mean they are less intelligent (or w.e) if they possess other skills that allow them to flourish in their own culture? If I am correct in saying that (let me know if I'm off base) then we need to create two different streams of discussions, separating african americans and other africans (including jamaicans), or else all discussion falls apart, because you use one do disprove the other and vice versa. Sorry mate, that doesn't fly.



not sure where you were getting at about my friend, that wasn't a murder based on conquering a nation. I'll just ignore that part.... Even IF IF IF we ASSUME that the effect would be the same as in the example of white man vs native american (which btw i have to say I don't know many people who correctly use the term american, so kudos there, what I was doing was trying to illustrate the difference between native americans in canada and native americans in the USA because I do not know much about those issues in the states.) and white man vs the now immigration etc, heres the perspective;

Europeans that settled the americas = the strong survive, to the victor go the spoils etc etc etc. When europeans came over, they came SPECIFICALLY to colonize, conquer and conquest. Just as hundreds of cultures have done in the past. (and nobody much is complaining about being Roman, now are they?) PRESENT DAY, it isn't a force of culture/race conquesting another race (which = war) but it is a gradual debilitation of the nation itself by immigrants (not all of course) emigrating from their country, and committing crime, sucking off social assistance (I can provide stats if you wish) and subverting the culture, IN ADDITION to the internal problems of the nation. Thusly, it would be natural for the presiding race to be pretty pissed off about it, if per capita the problems get worse. (for those who give a damn only... Its like the whole if you don't vote you have no right to bitch about politics thing)considering the government isn't even looking after its own population correctly. However due to affirmative action etc etc, the government is ALLOWING even FACILITATING such things, and OPRESSING those presiding people of the nation, who disagree. In effect we are being conquered without even being able to lift a finger against it. which is greatly different from the previous example. If I/we were allowed to fight for what I/we believe, then if I was conquered it would be because I/we were weaker/weaker race. Thusly it would be just another conquering and a new presiding culture, with now my culture on the sidelines being the conquered (now passing into fading history). Would we be bitching and moaning like we had sand in our vagina about our country being lost? Sure. But it doesn't change anything. Almost any other culture on the planet would not give in and allow their now presiding culture to be tainted. (look at other countries' immigration policies if you don't believe me)

I'm just sick of hearing other races bitch to the white man that they are evil and owe them something. If you were conquered I'm sorry, thats the way of nature or at the very least, the way of history. Me being hundreds of years away from those events, DONT OWE YOU (the other races) A GOOD GOD DAMN THING. Where your race is now is due to a failing of that race to pull together AS A RACE AND DEFEND THEMSELVES! THIS IS WHY CULTURES DISAPPEAR, and its been happening for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! why should I feel sorry for anyone? if the same happened to my race, why should anyone feel sorry for me? And if you look at many of the races out there who hold a grudge against my race (Africans included)(not altruistically mind you) they WOULDNT feel sorry for my race, and would make NO effort to help my race. Thats the way it is. A grudge isn't even required. It only takes another race becoming dominant, period. Im sick of hearing about fairness equality and all that other shit when my race is the only one held to those standards because we conquered most of the world. STOP bitching, take a look at your surroundings, and either decide to remove yourself from those surroundings in the belief that you can make it on your own somewhere else, ORRRRR pick up your fucking slack (however unfair or hard it is) and GET ON WITH LIFE.

I'm white, this is a white founded nation, if I get knocked down my government/people won't come to my rescue. Theres no 'white' education funds or white specific aid, white outreach, IN MY OWN COUNTRY! Even say 3rd generation african-canadians/americans will get special treatment despite being well established within the culture (like a 'native' white) over a white person. Like for fuck sakes it asks on pretty much every job application, loan application, bursary application if you consider yourself a visible minority. what the fuck is that bs.


(btw everywhere I have said 'you' but have not adressed you personally, I am merely using 'you' to refer to people who are not of my culture within the specifications I have given within the sentence. This does NOT mean anyone not of my colour as Africans etc that are 3rd generation for example are established canadians. I am not using 'you' in any kind of an accusatory, demeaning or patronizing manner)

cheers


BTW i just wanted to say, that none of this is said with hatred or anger in my heart. Most people describe me as having a problem of caring too much about things and people etc. What I have written is expression of frustration that stems from my perspective of failure to heed and take into consideration those universal factors. Especially when it forces me to live in an unconducive environment. (a bit ironic actually)

My point: White IS the same as black in ability, be it intellectual or otherwise. The colour of your skin at birth, or the continent on which your great, great, great grandpa was born does not in anyway affect your behavior or ability. Other things do. Why? Because we are ALL the same class, the same divisions. Everything balances out in humanity.

This is not providing proof (again, not against you necessarily, but against people here who have insinuated that I am predisposed to violence because of my physical make up) but refusing to accept a theory, shooting holes in their bubbles. In this, I am more of a defence attorney than a prosecutor, all I have to disprove is the validity of their claims, I do NOT need to provide and prove a counter claim.

The keyword there is "skills". Not ability. Surely it takes some kind of intelligence to learn a skill? If they were exposed to another "situation" that needed a different kind of skill at an early enough age, surely they would also learn these skills? Yes, I agree, this is merely an inference, and assumption, but until this assumption is explored and shot down, then a lot of theories can not be verified.

Regarding your "survival of the fittest" theory, might I point out yet another alternative view.
If the Western world had attempted to colonise africa about 1000-2000 years earlier, they would have been wiped out rather quickly and efficiently by a mixture of the indigenous tribes, the weather, and the rampant malaria (I'm not sure about the indigenuos tribes, because I'm of the beleif that most tribes in africa moved across the sahara within the last 1,000 years). However, same european tribes learnt warfare and technology (yes, learnt, not started as some would think), developed on it and adapted it for their use, before they could invade africa successfully. They didn't use the same technology or methods that the romans used. So why on earth do you expect any invasion of the north american mainland to stick to the weapons of yesteryear? What wisdom is there in that?? If you can accept the conquest of north america, and most of the known world by wester europe, then seriously, how can you justify your current anger? What makes one right and the other wrong? Do you sincerely think that the ancient indians were smiling, clapping and offering thick rolls of pot (ok, pipes not rolls) while the europeans came and started to slaughter the buffalo and native american in one fell swoop? Do you really think there was a carnival procession, with floats and all when the same native americans were herded off to the reservations to die of starvation and disease?

 

[PhantoMPhones]

ok about your defense. You are right you do not need to prove a counter claim, but you need to provide sufficient EVIDENCE to cast a VALID REASONABLE DOUBT, which you HAVE NOT DONE. Maybe to you, you have, but to the rest of the world your defense wouldn't hold up in any kind of scientific community or court of justice. You have not provided one SHRED of evidence supporting your argument so as to even cast any doubt on anything. You are trying to refute scientific evidence with 'nuh-uh' logic.

That being said,

You want to argue genetics? Alright here we go.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14877.full
genetic research on mice showing genetic predispositions of 'risk taking'. If you ever wondered why mice are used, it is because of the great genetic similarity to humans. Hence why we have had a lot of the advances in medicine that we have.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530
IQ test research correlating race and IQ averages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/health/15gene.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
NY TIMES (accredited article) Article citing genetic research on genetic predispositions for behaviours and traits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Wikipedia article (undisputed you will note) discussing race and genetics, including genetic models. Note the references at the bottom.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
another journal talking about genetic variation and race.

http://sinapse.arts.ucla.edu/genetics.htm
UCLA symposium videos regarding genetics and culture.

My point being. We KNOW FOR A FACT, that different races have different physical characteristics based on genetics (hence why white people don't have asian eyes or african noses etc on an overwhelming majority). We now KNOW FOR A FACT, that genes play a role in heredity in disease, predispositions, and BEHAVIOURAL TRAITS. We are now even exploring the effect of genetics on culture. And I won't even bother posting crime statistics,or international stats between the africas and the rest of the world or even african americans with the rest of americans because we all know what the stats are saying.

Conclusion:

You tell me. And honestly, if you dont have anything more than conjecture to respond with, I may not even bother replying. This is getting old real quick. You MUST provide some sort of contrary evidence that AT THE VERY LEAST can put this research and these FACTS into doubt. If you CANNOT do so, you have conceded defeat, you may just not believe you have. (not meant as an attack) I hope you read the articles in full, though from experience many people who argue the 'nuh-uh' defense don't look at evidence presented, and just continue on with the 'nuh-uh' defense, I hope you are not like this.

cheers

 

[Caladan]

Dear PhantoMPhones:

First thing - as I said, I don't need to provide evidence to shoot down theories. You claim that I show no evidence for my theories, well my counterclaim is that what little evidence you show proves nothing because it's not carried out in a serile and controlled environment. In other words, it's totally unscientific.

But moving on, I have been able to locate some documents which to an extent show my argument.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-Australia-NZ/batteryhens2.htm

This shows how the behavior of battery hens changes, and they exhibit aspects like agression and canibalism.

A bit simplistic perhaps, but that's how life is, severe conditions lead to unexpected results. This for me is a means of explaining how centuries of slavery, oppression and discrimination could so easily have influenced the black american, like I have suggested earlier.

And from your wikipedia article, I read: Therefore these SNPS that can be used to differentiate continental populations are not known to influence intelligence, behavior, susceptibility to disease or ability in sports.

Mate, I have read through several of the links you posted, and none of them has even proven your "separation" theory.

You think you're tired of this argument? I am weary of it myself. You're not saying anything tangible, one minute your claiming to respect one culture, the next you're supporting someone else's claim that some races are more prone to violent crimes than others.

If we are going to have a proper mature discussion, what I need you to do is to lay out your beleifs. Please summarize in a few sentences, and don't go on with paragraph after paragraph that makes understanding what you're saying hazy and unclear. What is your stance with respect to races (forget the genetics of IQ, etc). This is a races thread. What is your stance regarding races? Let us start the discussion from there.

My own stance is thus: All races are equal. They have similar variations of intelligence, aggression, and creativity. They however differ slightly in physical appearance and characteristics, as well as in culture.

Your turn

 

[skeptik]

I'd like to see your evidence for a causational relationship between genetics and crime. The correlational relationship can be explained easily enough. The genetic differences between races is obvious enough through the fact that different diseases impact different races differently. However, this very fact goes against your idea that 'the white man' is somehow now the great oppressed majority. Why is it, do you think, that 'black' diseases are often so much more severe than diseases that predominantly impact those of European descent? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that nobody wants to do the research behind preventing, treating, and curing these diseases? There are great inequalities (speaking in terms of my experience in the US) that put blacks and other minority groups, as well as women, on a lower plateau than men, with medical research just being one small example of that. Also, you don't seem to know exactly how affirmative action works.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Dear PhantoMPhones:

First thing - as I said, I don't need to provide evidence to shoot down theories. You claim that I show no evidence for my theories, well my counterclaim is that what little evidence you show proves nothing because it's not carried out in a serile and controlled environment. In other words, it's totally unscientific.

But moving on, I have been able to locate some documents which to an extent show my argument.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com...tteryhens2.htm

This shows how the behavior of battery hens changes, and they exhibit aspects like agression and canibalism.

A bit simplistic perhaps, but that's how life is, severe conditions lead to unexpected results. This for me is a means of explaining how centuries of slavery, oppression and discrimination could so easily have influenced the black american, like I have suggested earlier.

And from your wikipedia article, I read: Therefore these SNPS that can be used to differentiate continental populations are not known to influence intelligence, behavior, susceptibility to disease or ability in sports.

Mate, I have read through several of the links you posted, and none of them has even proven your "separation" theory.

You think you're tired of this argument? I am weary of it myself. You're not saying anything tangible, one minute your claiming to respect one culture, the next you're supporting someone else's claim that some races are more prone to violent crimes than others.

If we are going to have a proper mature discussion, what I need you to do is to lay out your beleifs. Please summarize in a few sentences, and don't go on with paragraph after paragraph that makes understanding what you're saying hazy and unclear. What is your stance with respect to races (forget the genetics of IQ, etc). This is a races thread. What is your stance regarding races? Let us start the discussion from there.

My own stance is thus: All races are equal. They have similar variations of intelligence, aggression, and creativity. They however differ slightly in physical appearance and characteristics, as well as in culture.

Your turn

My beliefs are not what is in question here now you are trying to drag me into a 'omg youre racist' debate which is downright not kosher... once again you have failed to provide anything substantiating, just saying 'i dont need to prove it'. this is a logical fallacy, and kind of shines you in a not so intelligent light. (not meant as an insult) This discussion is over on my end. saying you dont have to provide any evidence to shoot down theories, (which is funny why you call them theories when they are scientific proof) is ludicrous as everything in this world is evidence based. Unless you can provide evidence that the scientific research is what you claim, to be biased, then you do not have an argument. the bit about the wikipedia, you need to read it a bit more carefully, it is only speaking about one factor, which in all reality may not show those listed correlations. the fact that you say that X is untrue because you say it is, is ridiculous. It may be your opinion, but it holds no weight.

You think you're tired of this argument? I am weary of it myself. You're not saying anything tangible, one minute your claiming to respect one culture, the next you're supporting someone else's claim that some races are more prone to violent crimes than others.

so because i think that there are genetic differences that control behaviour which is PROVEN, I am all of a sudden not respectful? Please...

My own stance is thus: All races are equal. They have similar variations of intelligence, aggression, and creativity. They however differ slightly in physical appearance and characteristics, as well as in culture.

Thats nice. Unless you can provide any evidence to support such a claim though, your opinion remains just that, an opinion, not based in any sort of fact.


All I know is that I have provided research, stats, studies and ACCREDITED MEDICAL JOURNALS, and you have provided nothing but an ignorance about anything scientific. I won't even get into the hen thing because it has no correlation to humans, you cannot compare the two because they are two completely urelatable things. BTW I worked in a hatchery and lay farm for 5 years, I know all about the behaviour of the lay hens and the reasons why they kill eachother. If you are trying to say that black people in america or in africa have any correlation to 6 birds in a 1ft cubed cage with little food (which is done on purpose to get them to kill eachother off), then you sure must feel sorry for yourself. 'omg black people are still so opressed thats why they commit so much crime'.. please get over yourself. Yeah right, half of District of Columbia blacks are in prison because they have it so rough right? please.... There is NO EXCUSE for that kind of behaviour.

ROFL animal liberation front...I don't even need to comment further on that.

You think what you want, that is your right, in the meantime I rest assured that I am correct as has been proven by science, to this date. You seem intent on blaming every problem of the blacks on anything else other than blacks. Get real. If you agree that no matter what we have to get past everything and flourish as a species, then you will also agree that blaming things on other people is going to get you nowhere, and trying to justify everything based on this blame is ludicrous.

Go to another intellectual forum like (hell, even darkness.com lol) and try to argue the same case there.. I'm fairly certain that if you tried the same tactics with any other topic you would be laughed right off the forum, for your strawman logic and lack of any evidence.

I'm done here, this is making me dumber by the second. Get the last word in if you must. We will just have to agree to disagree. I have to get back to my oh so perfect white man life, and actively work on trying to keep the black people opressed. (extreme sarcasm if you didnt catch it)

Cheers

 

[Caladan]

Rubbish. I put in two links in my last post. The chicken example has the same weight as your mice example. And since when was the wikipedia article a medical journal (same wikipedia article that you claimed was undisputed, yet was actually a gathering of different disputes, including a good many that I felt argued very strongly the points I've been trying to make).

That is why I asked you for your own stand.

The chicken example was from experiments and observation undertaken by scientists, with proper controlled environments, none of which you have been able to provide. You bombard me with facts, yet I don't know what these facts are supposed to support or refute.

Instead you try to turn the whole conversation into some kind of comedy, taking pot shots at my posts. Tell me, how is it then that you posted links based on research undertaken with mice? I turn your argument against you now and say that mice aren't human either, so your own logic undoes your own statement.

Mate, I do not believe you are racist. I do not believe black people in the US are oppressed currently, but I do totally beleive that they were heavily oppressed as recently as 40 years ago. I believe that this oppression has had an effect on modern day black american sub-culture. This doesn't excuse the behaviour, this explains it.

You can make fun as much as you like, I am not dumbing you down (a few posts ago you claimed I was the one you liked discussing with). Dude, just because I take an opposing view doesn't make me wrong.

If you have a point to make, let us know what you beleive. State it bravely like a man, and stop running off on a tangent and ranting that anyone is calling you racist, so far no-one has, apart from yourself.

I don't even remember you stating what part of africa you visited.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Rubbish. I put in two links in my last post.

I only see one.... From animal liberation front.... A source that would be dismissed in ANY sort of scientific or medical debate.

And since when was the wikipedia article a medical journal (same wikipedia article that you claimed was undisputed, yet was actually a gathering of different disputes, including a good many that I felt argued very strongly the points I've been trying to make).

I didn't say wikipedia was a medical journal, most certainly not (i didn't mean ALL my sources were medical journals as I thought it was quite clear that they arent)Granted in terms of scientific merit based on medical/scientific journals (which are the only form of universally accepted research) the wikipedia example would be thrown out as quickly as your animal liberation front link (including those points that you think are valid) so lets eliminate them both. And if you know how wikipedia works you know that articles themselves can be disputed, which is what I was referring to.

The chicken example was from experiments and observation undertaken by scientists, with proper controlled environments, none of which you have been able to provide. You bombard me with facts, yet I don't know what these facts are supposed to support or refute.

I fail to see how pseudo science from animal liberation front is any more valid than the PUBLISHED research that I have provided. (do you know what kind of guidelines go into a decision to publish research in an accredited journal?)

Instead you try to turn the whole conversation into some kind of comedy, taking pot shots at my posts. Tell me, how is it then that you posted links based on research undertaken with mice? I turn your argument against you now and say that mice aren't human either, so your own logic undoes your own statement

I do not take any kind of pleasure or comedy in this debate, I find it rather disconcerting in fact (any misunderstanding is due to the inefficiency of internet communication)

I'm not sure you are completely comprehending what I was saying with the mice. MICE are used because of their DIRECT GENETIC similarity to humans. Mice are used in everything from cosmetics to disease research, even psychological research. Chickens are not. There is reason for this. Your chicken argument does not hold the same weight because you are talking about two species that are not proven to correlate in enough of a genetic manner (chickens arent even mammals) to be compared to eachother.

Mate, I do not believe you are racist. I do not believe black people in the US are oppressed currently, but I do totally beleive that they were heavily oppressed as recently as 40 years ago. I believe that this oppression has had an effect on modern day black american sub-culture. This doesn't excuse the behaviour, this explains it.

Ok, so literally then, anyone not over 40 years old (to be generous even), has no excuse other than sub-culture that is taught to them. Thusly it is still the races' own fault and failing. If young blacks are being taught by elder blacks, then it is a racial failing for not correcting those effects, just as it was the white mans failing for perpetuating the slave trade (I would like to point out that the white enslavement of blacks is a small scale compared to other similar situations in history, this of course does not excuse it)

You can make fun as much as you like, I am not dumbing you down (a few posts ago you claimed I was the one you liked discussing with).

I'm not trying to make fun, apologies on my behalf if it comes off that way, I mean no disrespect.

Dude, just because I take an opposing view doesn't make me wrong.

But I am wrong because I take an opposing view to yours?

I don't even remember you stating what part of africa you visited.

soweto for the most part.

If you have a point to make, let us know what you beleive. State it bravely like a man, and stop running off on a tangent and ranting that anyone is calling you racist, so far no-one has, apart from yourself.

Ok... What I believe is that all races have MUCH to contribute to eachother. I believe that there can be great enlightenment, technological/scientific/medical advancements that can be made by co-operation. I am not a xenophobe, however I am against most mass immigration and interracial breeding that is occuring in north america (and elsewhere) and increasingly in the britains (and a lot of Britons are quite pissed about it, so I've heard.) The reason I am against it is because too much mixing neutralizes what makes us different as peoples. It destroys faiths, language, and culture. I do not believe everyone is the same, nor do I believe everyone is equal, and I do not believe it should be so, its too altruistic. To say for example that a parapalegic (as a weak example of what Im trying to illustrate) is equal on all fronts to a 'fully functioning' (pardon the crude term) human is quite obviously erroneous. I am a proponent of euthenasia for seriously debilitated people (like the parents that take away their childs pain because they are even incapable of expressing themselves in the most primitive manners) I believe that different races have different strengths and weaknesses. Unless we are willing to refute that things like instinct exist, then we must concede that genetics play a role in determining certain behavioural patterns (which is increasingly being proven, but our science in this is still limited, as is any growing field of science.) I also believe in universal laws of nature that are observed in every species other than humans in an increasing gap. The strong always survive and to an extent I do not believe we have an obligation to slow down our own progress for the sake of caring for the weak. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link after all. This gap in the laws of nature is increasingly causing atrocious problems with the human race. We are seeing trends like low IQ families breeding 3x more than high IQ families, think of the ramifications of this alone(see: flynn effect). In terms of race, history has shown us that the strong conquer the weak and the weak are usually not left hanging around (either join the new society, or be banished/killed), but in modern times due to protective rights, technology, and political correctness which is trying to be passed off as 'advanced society' we are seeing that the weak are not dying off, and in fact are bringing the rest of society down in the destruction of culture, morality and the fact that they are protected in order to be manipulated by the powers that be to advance particular agendas. I am not making any distinction between what races are stronger or weaker, but I believe that if a race is shown to be unable to properly integrate into the rest of society, and a majority of them are killing eachother, others, dying of disease, and are almost completely unable to pull themselves together into a civilization, that the rest of the world has an obligation to the species to separate themselves from that race (even if they were directly or indirectly responsible for the failing of that particular race/people/group), so that the rest may survive and advance without being dragged back or destroyed trying to save a race from itself. Of course everything must have a line which is where the confusion/debate is created. No one person has the right to draw these lines, yet they must be drawn. A paradox of sorts.

I have to get back to class, so I will stop there. If you have any questions regarding what I have stated thus far, please feel free to ask as long as the questions are free from accusations or insult.

I look forward to discussing this with you further Caladan *extends hand*

cheers

 

[Caladan]

Cool, now I understand you. I don't agree with you on all fronts - while I do agree with every nation's right to keep it's borders safe from foreigners, and guard it's citizens, the interracial thing that sort of goes against the grain for me. I believe human beings should be free to choose whoever they want to be with. Sure I agree too much mixing does indeed destroy our differences, but at the same time it's these differences that constantly lead to wars and other little crimes that humanity has commited against each other over the years, why then are you so keen on preserving these differences? If as you said different races have different strengths and weaknesses, would racial intermixing not then produce a 50-50 chance of gathering together these strengths? If so, why then should we throw away a theory that has a 50% chance of producing an "improved" form of humanity?


You mentioned this "it is still the races' own fault and failing. If young blacks are being taught by elder blacks, then it is a racial failing for not correcting those effects". I totally agree. No reservations whatsoever. But let's examine the next statement "I would like to point out that the white enslavement of blacks is a small scale compared to other similar situations in history". Is it?? I would very much appreciate if you could educate me of any other race that has been dehumanised in the same manner as the black race (with a special emphasis on black americans), with no lasting effects.

I am very interested in this phrase
"but I believe that if a race is shown to be unable to properly integrate into the rest of society, and a majority of them are killing eachother, others, dying of disease, and are almost completely unable to pull themselves together into a civilization, that the rest of the world has an obligation to the species to separate themselves from that race (even if they were directly or indirectly responsible for the failing of that particular race/people/group)"
Well hang on a minute - when the roman army withdrew from England (around 400 AD), britain quickly fell into a state of anarchy and disorder, and several civil wars followed. As I have mentioned earlier, the oldest country in africa is 50 years old. Can you honestly tell me that 50 years after the romans left England, the country was a blossoming seat of democracy? Can you claim that immediately after the roman empire imploded, mainland europe immediately thrived with commerce, industry, and music? No. Every Nation suffers birthing pains, and some longer than others. Today Africa is in a much MUCH better state than it was say ten years ago, though it may not be immediately obvious. If we are to backdate your beleifs a couple of hundred years ago, the irish would quickly be regarded as a surplus to society. If we go back another couple of hundred years earlier, the nobles would be the elite, and the "masses" would be the weak.

Let me tell you what would totally prove your theory - a gathering of groups of female and male infants with parents from several parts of the world to be placed in an incubator. Educational and parental/cultural and dietic influence should be controlled (I'm thinking they should be fed and taught by stainless steel robots). These controlled pairs should then reproduce, and their offspring again be separated, to reduce the deviance in the lifestyle of parents (alchohol abuse, drug use, etc). Then let's replay the tests on this second generation of children. This will give us a much better view of your theory. For all I know, you may even prove to be correct...

 

[PhantoMPhones]

the interracial thing that sort of goes against the grain for me.

Agreed to a point, I generally believe in the concept of personal freedom, I mean I would think it to be quite lame if someone tried stopping me from breeding with the person I chose. HOWEVER, this is one of the problems I see with society. We have all this so called freedom now, and there is no responsibility with it. We figure 'its my freedom so why not if its my choice'. But as the adage goes 'with great strength comes great responsibility'. We can see the effects in morality, crime, drugs etc etc etc. I do not agree with this level of freedom. 'I'll do it because I can.' I disagree wholeheartedly.

If as you said different races have different strengths and weaknesses, would racial intermixing not then produce a 50-50 chance of gathering together these strengths? If so, why then should we throw away a theory that has a 50% chance of producing an "improved" form of humanity?

The problem with this, is that its not how genetics generally work. I can't seem to find a source at first glance, maybe someone can confirm or negate this, but as far as I know this is why eugenics breeding didn't work out as planned. As far as I can recall, weaknesses are more likely to breed into eachother rather than strengths. I know that sounds sort of weak I'll have to find a source, but as far as I know, when you breed two people with x strength and y strength, there is very little chance of creating offspring with x+y strengths. we can readily see examples in heredity with disease, which is why it is well established in the medical community. The same cannot be said about strength, which is why there is debate over genetic dispositions to be better at sports, agression or learning abilities etc depending on genetics. However we are starting to be able to see which genes themselves may 'control' those factors, which may or may not be passed on. But deliberately trying to add strengths together by breeding doesn't work. Example. Breeding dogs. Say you breed a shepherd for its brains (lets say a shepherd isnt considered beutiful), and a cockerspaniel for its beauty (cockerspaniels aren't intelligent dogs in general). You won't necessarily create a dog that is both smart and beautiful. You are more likely to create a mediocrity within the two. understand what I mean? I can hardly count that as "improved".

Sure I agree too much mixing does indeed destroy our differences, but at the same time it's these differences that constantly lead to wars and other little crimes that humanity has commited against each other over the years, why then are you so keen on preserving these differences?

Because they are what make humans, human. Just think if everyone was 'the same'. Do you really want that kind of mediocrity? Everything, 'the same'. Without cultural or otherwise difference, ideas would become stagnant, creativity would become bland. Everything would be grey. Personally I don't want that. Sure it might make things 'easy', but I personally believe it destroys a part of humanity. A part of humanity that I really like, despite the problems that PEOPLE create. The differences themselves don't create wars. It's the way people handle those differences.

You mentioned this "it is still the races' own fault and failing. If young blacks are being taught by elder blacks, then it is a racial failing for not correcting those effects". I totally agree. No reservations whatsoever. But let's examine the next statement "I would like to point out that the white enslavement of blacks is a small scale compared to other similar situations in history". Is it?? I would very much appreciate if you could educate me of any other race that has been dehumanised in the same manner as the black race (with a special emphasis on black americans), with no lasting effects.

Not that I'm trying to skirt (?) your question, but I'd rather us not go there. I wasn't trying to downplay what happened to the black race or anything. The problem is that its all speculation if we discuss this, and totally a matter of perspective. For example. A race is conquered and wiped out. One may say there were none of that race that survived for there to be lasting effects, another person would say that the extermination of that race IS a lasting effect just on its own. I just think its too much a subjective matter. Like if you say 'well then if there are lasting effects then -------------- africa is developing etc etc' to which I may say 'so what, the stats speak for themselves, lets separate ourselves from africa until they can develop on their own and join society.' (not that Im saying I would, but if I did) Its just waaay to subjective, which is not what I'm trying to argue. We would end up on tangents, getting frustrated and having to agree to disagree. which would be a waste of time then. We are having a hard enough time with scientific facts, let alone arguing opinions that have nothing backing them other than personal belief.

"but I believe that if a race is shown to be unable to properly integrate into the rest of society, and a majority of them are killing eachother, others, dying of disease, and are almost completely unable to pull themselves together into a civilization, that the rest of the world has an obligation to the species to separate themselves from that race (even if they were directly or indirectly responsible for the failing of that particular race/people/group)"
Well hang on a minute - when the roman army withdrew from England (around 400 AD), britain quickly fell into a state of anarchy and disorder, and several civil wars followed. As I have mentioned earlier, the oldest country in africa is 50 years old. Can you honestly tell me that 50 years after the romans left England, the country was a blossoming seat of democracy? Can you claim that immediately after the roman empire imploded, mainland europe immediately thrived with commerce, industry, and music? No. Every Nation suffers birthing pains, and some longer than others. Today Africa is in a much MUCH better state than it was say ten years ago, though it may not be immediately obvious. If we are to backdate your beleifs a couple of hundred years ago, the irish would quickly be regarded as a surplus to society. If we go back another couple of hundred years earlier, the nobles would be the elite, and the "masses" would be the weak.

Then what is wrong with separating ourselves from them until they develop? Crime rates are higher, diesease rates are through the roof, why expose already developed nations to this kind of tainting? let them develop on their own. I didn't say 'if they cant blah blah blah, lets kill them all' I said let us separate ourselves from them. We should do this until they are capable of joining society without making average rates of undesired X rise significantly. (btw the post roman britain thing is a bit of a sketchy example)

Let me tell you what would totally prove your theory - a gathering of groups of female and male infants with parents from several parts of the world to be placed in an incubator. Educational and parental/cultural and dietic influence should be controlled (I'm thinking they should be fed and taught by stainless steel robots). These controlled pairs should then reproduce, and their offspring again be separated, to reduce the deviance in the lifestyle of parents (alchohol abuse, drug use, etc). Then let's replay the tests on this second generation of children. This will give us a much better view of your theory. For all I know, you may even prove to be correct...

Im not sure what 'theory' you are referring to, but I see a couple problems with your model. I have never said that culture and environment don't play a role, they most certainly do. If you create this sort of environment, you will never yield any results. why? because in order to see the effects of genetic differences you have to have an environment that allows for free will in the REAL WORLD. Ill use your 'separate offspring -alcohol/drug abuse' portion of the model as example. If you control the environment and do not introduce external factors, genetic or otherwise individual differences do not have a chance to culminate there would be no reason for many of the genetic (free will if you wish to call it, which i totally recognized is not completely based in genetics of course) differences to show themselves. However, for example, say you have a white person and a black person. The white person is thought of having a gene that predisposes him to alcoholism, and the black person is thought not to have the gene, and they are both exposed to the same external factors and situations of say a parent who is an abusive alcoholic we may then see that the white person turns to alcoholism and the black person does not. HOWEVER, this is NOT a given. Genetics don't mean that one will be forced to follow the predisposition, only that the chance increases. If we multiply that model by MILLIONS of people, we will begin to see TRENDS that will generally occur. (or perhaps not, right?) which is what the statistics are trying to represent. BUUUUUUUUT if we sterilize the environment, the effects will be greatly minimized to the point where any definitive measurement of such genetic factors, will become null. Its like a germ culture. Put a germ on a petri dish, it will sit there and then die out, you wont be able to see anything but the germ itself, you wont see what it does, or what effects it will/could have, besides those that you create yourself (hardly unbiased or scientific) Once you culture the germ (funny they use the word culture) that is, introducing an environment/catalyst where the germ can freely grow and develop, that is when you will see results of what you are studying. Make sense?

cheers

 

[Caladan]

Agreed to a point, I generally believe in the concept of personal freedom, I mean I would think it to be quite lame if someone tried stopping me from breeding with the person I chose. HOWEVER, this is one of the problems I see with society. We have all this so called freedom now, and there is no responsibility with it. We figure 'its my freedom so why not if its my choice'. But as the adage goes 'with great strength comes great responsibility'. We can see the effects in morality, crime, drugs etc etc etc. I do not agree with this level of freedom. 'I'll do it because I can.' I disagree wholeheartedly.


The problem with this, is that its not how genetics generally work. I can't seem to find a source at first glance, maybe someone can confirm or negate this, but as far as I know this is why eugenics breeding didn't work out as planned. As far as I can recall, weaknesses are more likely to breed into eachother rather than strengths. I know that sounds sort of weak I'll have to find a source, but as far as I know, when you breed two people with x strength and y strength, there is very little chance of creating offspring with x+y strengths. we can readily see examples in heredity with disease, which is why it is well established in the medical community. The same cannot be said about strength, which is why there is debate over genetic dispositions to be better at sports etc depending on genetics. However we are starting to be able to see which genes themselves may 'control' those factors, which may or may not be passed on. But deliberately trying to add strengths together by breeding doesn't work. Example. Breeding dogs. Say you breed a shepherd for its brains (lets say a shepherd isnt considered beutiful), and a cockerspaniel for its beauty (cockerspaniels aren't intelligent dogs in general). You won't necessarily create a dog that is both smart and beautiful. You are more likely to create a mediocrity within the two. understand what I mean? I can hardly count that as "improved".[1]


Because they are what make humans, human. Just think if everyone was 'the same'. Do you really want that kind of mediocrity? Everything, 'the same'. Without cultural or otherwise difference, ideas would become stagnant, creativity would become bland. Everything would be grey. Personally I don't want that. Sure it might make things 'easy', but I personally believe it destroys a part of humanity. A part of humanity that I really like, despite the problems that PEOPLE create. The differences themselves don't create wars. It's the way people handle those differences.[2]


Not that I'm trying to skirt (?) your question, but I'd rather us not go there. I wasn't trying to downplay what happened to the black race or anything. The problem is that its all speculation if we discuss this, and totally a matter of perspective. For example. A race is conquered and wiped out. One may say there were none of that race that survived for there to be lasting effects, another person would say that the extermination of that race IS a lasting effect just on its own. I just think its too much a subjective matter. Like if you say 'well then if there are lasting effects then -------------- africa is developing etc etc' to which I may say 'so what, the stats speak for themselves, lets separate ourselves from africa until they can develop on their own and join society.' (not that Im saying I would, but if I did) Its just waaay to subjective, which is not what I'm trying to argue. We would end up on tangents, getting frustrated and having to agree to disagree. which would be a waste of time then. We are having a hard enough time with scientific facts, let alone arguing opinions that have nothing backing them other than personal belief.[3]


Then what is wrong with separating ourselves from them until they develop? Crime rates are higher, diesease rates are through the roof, why expose already developed nations to this kind of tainting? let them develop on their own. I didn't say 'if they cant blah blah blah, lets kill them all' I said let us separate ourselves from them. We should do this until they are capable of joining society without making average rates of undesired X rise significantly. (btw the post roman britain thing is a bit of a sketchy example)[4]



Im not sure what 'theory' you are referring to, but I see a couple problems with your model. I have never said that culture and environment don't play a role, they most certainly do. If you create this sort of environment, you will never yeild any results. why? because in order to see the effects of genetic differences you have to have an environment that allows for free will in the REAL WORLD. Ill use your 'separate offspring -alcohol/drug abuse' portion of the model as example. If you control the environment and do not introduce external factors, genetic or otherwise individual differences do not have a chance to culminate there would be no reason for many of the genetic (free will if you wish to call it, which i totally recognized is not completely based in genetics of course) differences to show themselves. However, for example, say you have a white person and a black person. The white person is thought of having a gene that predisposes him to alcoholism, and the black person is thought not to have the gene, and they are both exposed to the same external factors of say a parent who is an abusive alcoholic we may then see that the white person turns to alcoholism and the black person does not. HOWEVER, this is NOT a given. Genetics don't mean that one will be forced to follow the predisposition, only that the chance increases. If we multiply that model by MILLIONS of people, we will begin to see TRENDS that will generally occur. (or perhaps not, right?) which is what the statistics are trying to represent. BUUUUUUUUT if we sterilize the environment, the effects will be greatly minimized to the point where any definitive measurement of such genetic factors, will become null. Its like a germ culture. Put a germ on a petri dish, it will sit there and then die out, you wont be able to see anything but the germ itself, you wont see what it does, or what effects it will/could have. Once you culture the germ (funny they use the word culture) that is, introducing an environment/catalyst where the germ can freely grow and develop, that is when you will see results of what you are studying. Make sense?[5]

Hey how goes it?
[1] What I do seem to remember was "close breeding" heightening genetical defects. For example the waves of insanity and congenital diseases that appeared to sweep majority of the royal families in europe earlier in the last decade because of the absence of "new blood", and because of laws that prohibited the royals from diluting their blood, which led to most royals being quite closely related. (There are a few articles on wiki about the House of Habsburg on this matter). Another disadvantage of restricted relations is that restricted gene pools raises immunity to disease. In my opinion, science does appear to think otherwise about diversity in genetic material, but this may be debatable.

[2]Uhh... I don't see how this could happen - humanity becoming totally the same. Sure, some differences will disappear, but others will spring up to take their place. Also, there will be demographic differences across the world, and the climate too will play it's part. Accents may replace language, yet someone who speaks with a chinese accent for example will sound quite distinct to someone with a mainland african accent. Then we'll have our idiosyncracies of course (you know, ebonics, patois, etc). I don't think we need fear that amount of uniformity, even within current racial divisions, there exist quite impressive differences.

[3]. I agree.

[4] Hmm. There's some wisdom here. I would argue that this already does happen to some degree, with visa laws, sanctions and the likes, but I see your point. May I ask- will this be a permanent arrangement, or will it slowly be relaxed as these cultures gradually draw themselves closer to the mainstream (Sanctions were eased against Libya and Ghadaffi after a while)

[5] Actually, I was hoping to re-introduce this second generation into society and free choice after being well educated. And after their personalities are established without the influence of the western world. Then we can see how they handle their newfound free choice and perhaps draw conclusions from there?

 

[PhantoMPhones]

[1] What I do seem to remember was "close breeding" heightening genetical defects. For example the waves of insanity and congenital diseases that appeared to sweep majority of the royal families in europe earlier in the last decade because of the absence of "new blood", and because of laws that prohibited the royals from diluting their blood, which led to most royals being quite closely related. (There are a few articles on wiki about the House of Habsburg on this matter). Another disadvantage of restricted relations is that restricted gene pools raises immunity to disease. In my opinion, science does appear to think otherwise about diversity in genetic material, but this may be debatable.

Agreed, though the thing with the royals was that it was very extreme, within a VERY limited number of bloodlines, which is where the defects start cropping up. On a global scale though, nations themselves have more than enough unique base pairs to overcome this to the point where there is absolutely no risk of something like that happening. (asides from incest or heredity of course)

[2]Uhh... I don't see how this could happen - humanity becoming totally the same. Sure, some differences will disappear, but others will spring up to take their place. Also, there will be demographic differences across the world, and the climate too will play it's part. Accents may replace language, yet someone who speaks with a chinese accent for example will sound quite distinct to someone with a mainland african accent. Then we'll have our idiosyncracies of course (you know, ebonics, patois, etc). I don't think we need fear that amount of uniformity, even within current racial divisions, there exist quite impressive differences.

My only point is that the differences that exist now are FAR greater in diversity than what would happen should we all decide to interbreed (even governments will start to disappear, i dont know about you but getting closer to a one government world isnt my idea of 'good') There would me general mediocrity. I think this is more a matter of perspective as to the pros and cons of it. Personally I like what we have, I like the diversity that exists as it is now. I do not want to see faiths disappear, philosophies disappear, I don't want everything to get boring. Even the differences that will crop up will eventually be evened out by even more time... Eventually your examples of ebonics (an abomination of language in my opinion) accents and the like will disappear as well over greater lengths of time.

I guess its a personal thing. I think it would be boring. I like the diversity that exists. I would not enjoy the kind of 'diversity' that would and at this rate WILL be created. It will take away so much of the innate uniqueness that is. Even speaking style, style is even already starting to streamline. Its all mixing and becoming quite bland and not to mention passive. Some people may like the idea of this general kind of equality, everybody sharing all the same common interests etc, no distinguishable racial differences etc etc, personally I think its a failure as a species. Its too easy, you dont have to do anything for this to happen, just let things go the way they are. Im not big on that. I think it devalues who we are. Makes us so....common....disposable.

[4] Hmm. There's some wisdom here. I would argue that this already does happen to some degree, with visa laws, sanctions and the likes, but I see your point. May I ask- will this be a permanent arrangement, or will it slowly be relaxed as these cultures gradually draw themselves closer to the mainstream (Sanctions were eased against Libya and Ghadaffi after a while)

Of course it would only be temporary (given that the people are able to stabilize themselves etc). We would slowly lax and eventually welcome them back to the global community. Or they may remain as their own separate dealy. Plus I mean why should the country be pissed about us cutting them off for a while? Many undeveloped or developing places have ill-will towards those who were in their country (example british colonization of Africa) they should be damned happy that everyone would leave them to themselves to develop, no?

Actually, I was hoping to re-introduce this second generation into society and free choice after being well educated. And after their personalities are established without the influence of the western world. Then we can see how they handle their newfound free choice and perhaps draw conclusions from there?

Only problem I have with this is that children are most impressionable within the first 5 years of life. And the most important years of life are from birth to say mid 20's. If you cut them off for ANY significant portion of time within those years, the experiment is debunked because they did not have their freedom from the start. You will create error in the results due to the controlled environment you had them in to begin with. You will begin to see new problems like some of those people will not be able to integrate into society, you are in effect having a large effect on all aspects of their behaviour. Its a new and very important variable that you would have introduced, which could very potentially change the way they function as humans.

cheers

 

[Caladan]

You know, I find it hard to argue against most of your points because for the most part I agree with them. The single one I'm not sure about is the argument against interracial associations. I'm sorry, it just doesn't wash too well with me. I consider it a force of nature. Mankind in the not so recent past mingled freely. Then with the continental spread and other geographical changes, this mingling was greatly reduced, and secvere climatic changes led to differences in physical appearance. Now technology is overcoming this geographic separation and mankind is once again beginning to intermingle and you have a problem with this?

Culture is simply a collection of mores and values put in place to guide a set of people through a period of time. They change quickly with external input, experience, and other little things, they are by no means cast in iron. I can assure you, nature does NOT take culture into consideration when she casts out her clouds of change.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

You know, I find it hard to argue against most of your points because for the most part I agree with them. The single one I'm not sure about is the argument against interracial associations. I'm sorry, it just doesn't wash too well with me. I consider it a force of nature. Mankind in the not so recent past mingled freely. Then with the continental spread and other geographical changes, this mingling was greatly reduced, and secvere climatic changes led to differences in physical appearance. Now technology is overcoming this geographic separation and mankind is once again beginning to intermingle and you have a problem with this?

Yes I do. I believe our differences have greatly diversified our species. Cultures are an amazing thing, and for them to disappear because a bunch of fat lazy slobs (or otherwise) have technology to survive is the ultimate failure in my mind. I love the diversity in our cultures, and I am DEAD against destruction of said cultures, due to technology enabling us to survive almost any hardship with little effort. And I do believe that some people weren't meant to survive, but here we are. I believe our differences are markers of our species survival, its history and its future, which technology helped create. But now it is technology that will erase all that has been created. There is no reason our races cannot associate with eachother, but I believe mass intermixing and interbreeding will have the same effect that technology has the potential for. I feel no reason to explain myself further.