Answer one of those questions and I’ll respond to your request.
Basically it would be that we don’t know enough yet.
I always thought it was interesting how in the olympics East Africans would always dominate in the long runs and West Africans in the sprints. If physical characteristics could vary to such a degree between ethnic groups it wouldn’t be too far fetched to say mental variations between races exist. Still the brain is much more flexible than the body. Has more with the enviroment to do than the body does.
People who take it too far on either side seem really misguided. Slight generizations that have mostly to do with the high end spectrums really ought not to concern your everyday person. It’s just not a big deal.
The risk with society adopting racial-realism so to say would be that it could become a self fulfilling prophecy. Something really unfortunate in my eyes.
Love to hear some feedback on this line of thinking.
The solution is to stop thinking about race entirely. Those who advocate racial equality are in fact being racist. You can’t make laws concerning race if the people are not to think in terms of race. It is self-defeating, and a bit moronic.
If race was never, ever considered by anyone, races would still segregate, but it would be based on reality, not presumption and prejudice. Then any deficiencies or concerns could be dealt with rationally.
Simply not true.
Could a dung beetle be potentially the fastest, or a cheetah the strongest?
No, and it has nothing to do with environment or culture.
And yet we have no trouble agreeing that a cheetah is the fastest land animal or a dung beetle the strongest.
Intelligence can be measured the same way as any other physical trait, but there has been a concerted effort to undermine this by the liberal establishment.
Why?
Because in IQ tests it CONCLUSIVELY emerges that some races have a higher degree of intelligence than others, and this is EXCLUSIVELY the result of hard wired, biological differences, no different to the case of the cheetah or dung beetle measured against any other animal.
Let’s assume for the line of discussion I want to take that whites are more intelligent, which includes the assumption that IQ tests and the like measure the full range of intelligences. So as a race realist, what do you do with this information/conclusion, what does it lead to conceptually. And keep in mind that the assumption would entail that Asians, at least, likely Jews, would be then assumed to be more intelligent than whites.
I see an argument over what should be primarily a matter of statistics, and nobody citing any.
SO? Do the different races have statistically interesting variations in I.Q., athletic ability, aggressive behavior, technological innovation/curiosity, mathematical/linguistic capability, religious devotion, dietary needs, bone structure, work ethic and so on, or don't they? Does there seem to be any difference between nations ruled/populated by various races, or not? These questions I'm asking are not mysterious, and we don't have to wait for some amazing future technology to answer them. I see a lot of intelligent people playing dumb in this thread- "I'm drawing my conclusions based on my anecdotal encounters with various people" is an entirely inadequate approach to answering this question. Pretending you don't know what statistics are or how they work is unacceptable- you shouldn't have to force anybody to explain to you that just because there are tiny dogs and huge housecats, "Do dogs tend to be bigger than housecats?" is not an unanswerable conundrum. "Even if it exists, it is incumbent upon us to pretend it doesn't or teach that it doesn't" should never be expressed by somebody claiming to be a philosopher.
This is what happens when people are taught that certain ideas are evil irrespective of their truth value- otherwise intelligent people engage in preposterous mental gymnastics to avoid saying what they know. Other, equally intelligent people excuse them for doing so because they don't want to look guilty either. Race-Realism may well be false, but there's no reason to pursue that question in a cowardly or anti-intellectual way.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw[/youtube]
This is just a test of economic inequality.
Given this,
Shall we look at statistics demonstrating the economic status of certain groups of people?
Fuck anecdotes, right?
You only care for statistics.
Does it sting?
If this is a thread about scientific racism, that theory went out the window in the middle of the 20th century. But it has been popping up from time to time more recently.
There is only one race, if by ‘race’, species is meant; on the other hand, there are groups of people with differing skin, hair, and eye colors and there are various ethnicities in the world. These groups are commonly called ‘races’; one of those ‘races’ is caucasian–one is negroid–one is asian–etc., etc. But, these groups are all Homo Sapian sapian.
And that’s the truth, Ollie.
Enjoy,
Liz
Uccisore, you’ve been in enough of these types of threads to know that statistics wouldn’t sway many if anyone, the debate will only turn to the validity of the studies. Which is why it’s useful to simply ask hypothetical questions first.
The following quote was posted on Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:43 am (Within the last fortnight)
The below posted on Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:48 pm
Stuart always knew the flaws of statistics, hence why he asserted the integrity of my position relied on whether I could deliver statistics.
There’s no back peddling occurring here.
Stuart asserts, we should ignore ‘questionable’ statistics, and stick to hypothetical situations.
This is the wisest course of action - a long held belief by Stuart.
====
You’re a joke.
Scientific racism isn't a theory. Or a fact, or a hypothesis, or any of that. It's a way of labelling a certain set of hypothesis (both historical, current, and what may be made into the future) such that they can be disregarded on moral grounds without actually looking at the data. If it 'went out the window', it should be easy to show that the differences in racial IQ, physiology, temperament and etc. are imagined or based on flawed science. My problem right now is that I seem to be seeing scientific data on one side (not in this thread, but in general mind you), and people saying "Science isn't allowed to conclude things that complicate my views of social justice" on the other.
Yes, the sting of complete irrelevance. You’re mad about income inequality, I know. I’m still left wondering what you think about race realism.
You’re arrogant, like Stuart.
You assert anyone who disagrees with you, are being intellectually dishonest, because you’re too ignorant to comprehend their real motivations.
You went further, and said we’ve no statistics to back us up, so we’re just using anecdotes to cover the fact.
Here’s the truth, bro.
Not all of us live in a state of constant doubt, where we need to stretch for evidence to suppress our better judgment.
A sign of YOUR intellectual honesty, is that you’re willing to throw out insults without verifying your accusations, like the rest of your arrogant comrades.
Furthermore, when given statistics that support the claims of those you accuse of having no sincere basis, instead of addressing the statistics, or maybe even admitting your arrogance was unfounded, you just go ahead and throw more shit.
Something’s bound to stick, right?
I can save face, if only I can find a way to cut this guy down…
Stuart sees the relation to the statistics. That’s why he’s now distancing himself from the relevance of statistics.
You’re feigning ignorance, as your means of damage control.
You’re both as transparent as each other.
Think next time before you’re made to look foolish.
I’m out.
Already? But you didn’t say anything about race-realism, yet.
I have not come across a thread containing statistics for growth rates for various races where there is any debate. That certain races are slowly shrinking, or at least relatively shrinking and certain races are quickly growing is beyond dispute based on simple regional census data around the world, if nothing else.
This thread is about intelligence not growth, conversely a subject where the statistic are often highly in dispute. I’m not at the moment as drawn into this subject as would be necessary to sort through them. Presently my interest here lies in stating the very most obvious aspects of this subject; that there’s a difference in intelligence among races which can’t be countered rationally without countering evolutionary theory itself, and those who deny this are imbeciles, and cowards as well if rather than directly state their denial, they hide behind supposed statistical ambiguity.
Erik, simple question.
If you give all the same civic rights, won’t the brightest of any race rise to the top on the grounds of their merit alone?
And thus, is there a practical purpose to determining the superiority of a race over another?
Can we gain anything from talking about this, other than animosity?
The problem is that if you do the above, and it ends up being that for every 1 black person that rises to the top, 50 whites, 60 jews, and 75 asians rise to the top, then people who believe that it can’t possibly be true that the races are different will pass discriminatory laws like Affirmative Action, racial hiring quotas, and sue the shit out of anybody who is even suspected of preferring to hire one race over another. That’s why it’s important to discover what the truth is about racial disparities, because there are plenty of people who believe that any disparity in outcome must be a product of racism, and has to be fixed somehow.
I’m with you- give everybody equal rights, drop all this stuff about quotas and affirmative action, let whatever happens happen, and be done with it. But that’s NOT what’s happening, and people who call themselves ‘race realists’ are not the reason why.
Well, the obvious answer is that you stop treating every issue of disparity as being institutional discrimination that has to be fixed with legislation or lawsuits.
Yes, if everyone started out on the same line of the race ( foot race ), then the superior runner would win.
Why does there need to be a practical purpose? How about intellectual satisfaction?
A practical purpose could be to breed with the same race in order to enhance genetical potentials.
Affirmative action justifies the disparity by saying that these “marginalized” ethnicities underperform due to a historic of disprivilege. To say that it is a vicious cycle where the poor have no access to proper education and thus cannot compete fairly against the wealthy, creating a sort of a society where it is impossible to rise form one class to another.
However the historic of immigration in this country disproves that justification. Immigrants are themselves a marginalized group, individuals and families that have to start form scratch. And yet, the success of many of these groups attest to their ingenuity and effort.
This does not go to say that racial prejudice is not a factor limiting one’s growth. However it isn’t one that should be perpetually used as an excuse to demand for reparations.
Take the japanese immigrants for example. They were victims of a very recent racial discrimination, displaced from their homes and put into ghettos, merely 70 years go. The federal government paid them each a reparatory fee of about 20k and sent them on their way, and they have since prospered.
How many times 20K a black individual receives from the federal govt in his lifetime, as a reparation for something that ended 150 years ago? Is affirmative action a temporary fix, in which we force schools to take in black students so that they will become educated and provide better means for their own children, so that at a point in the future no affirmative action will be needed? Will affirmative action end the problem of racial discrimination, given that those individuals who would not have hired or admitted a black person on grounds of racism will do it only for obligation, and be forever spiteful of it, or will it instigate it?
Really, give everybody equal rights and the end. Those of us who are capable and self respecting blacks, latin, and other immigrants need nothing from anyone.