Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An argument against "Race Realism".

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 9:05:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I posted this as a reply to a comment on a video by Fringeelements {youtube.com/watch?v=i4fvLMS_Vos&lc=iGHBL_cHrkOPLIiAW-YojyYImUzdwzpJuPOWvntUYb0} that claimed that monorace societies can have benefits.

Why do you think it provides real benefits? I would understand if you only want to live with healthy people or smart people, but basing a society on something that is not constant is stupid. If a society is made up of all smart people, it's made up of all smart people. If you want to have a society of all whites or whatever in order to only live with smart people, you're ignoring all the smart people of other races and the dumb people of your race. You get what I'm saying? Since race is not defined by things like intelligence but rather skin colour and ancestry, you can't use it to justify separation for those reasons. I mean, if I put people with blonde hair in a group and compare them against people with black hair, any differences with things like IQ can't really be explained by hair colour. You can't group people and then use comparisons between those groups to make a point. The groupings have nothing to do with the differences, since the groupings were not based on that. The differences can be explained by the difference between individuals by themselves. Even within races, people's IQ and things like that vary. That means that comparisons between arbitrary groups can't be sound unless they account for that.
If you want to group people together and compare them, you need a basis for those groupings.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 9:08:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(the rest was written just for this thread)
The fact that people use these comparisons completely ignores the individual. When you group people and make assumptions about the group, you're not taking into account the outliers of said group. Therefore, these viewpoints are destructive. I don't care if 99% of black people are stupid. What matters is that 1% isn't. Unless you have 100% of a group having a certain quality, you cannot assume anything about them. The only way you could have 100% certainty is if you build the group around the quality (e.g. people with black hair have black hair.)

I reject things like affirmative action and the age of consent for these reasons. The same argument could also be used against things like the view that women should not be allowed to serve in the military.

To use a quote by Ayn Rand, "A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race"and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin."
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:09:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
<<I reject things like affirmative action and the age of consent for these reasons.>>

In regard to affirmative action, what other solution is more effective at achieving the results intended by affirmative action?

It's always interesting to hear about people rejecting affirmative action, yet there has not been any convincing alternative solutions put forth. In fact, many rejectors even go so far as to absurdly claim there was no problem to fix.

So, let's go back in time pre-affirmative action. How would you resolve the problem?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:13:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:09:59 PM, Outspoken wrote:
<<I reject things like affirmative action and the age of consent for these reasons.>>

In regard to affirmative action, what other solution is more effective at achieving the results intended by affirmative action?

It's always interesting to hear about people rejecting affirmative action, yet there has not been any convincing alternative solutions put forth. In fact, many rejectors even go so far as to absurdly claim there was no problem to fix.

So, let's go back in time pre-affirmative action. How would you resolve the problem?

Judge everyone by their merits and not by the arbitrary groups they are in.
I think this is fully practical, as those who don't do this can be denied your support and resources.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:31:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not talking about now, when something like that is a logical proposal because we do not face the amount of inequality, racial intolerance (that was fundamental to especially southern culture) and hatred. I'm talking about then - when systems, laws and institutions were all built on notions of inequality. The very truth of being of a certain race regardless your abilities, merit, contributions meant to those in power that you were inferior.

Your new solution? Because what you've proposed for that day in age is clearly insufficient. It's easy to look around now and think "you do a good job you get good rewards." But let's really go back. Obama could be the most brilliant man on earth with all the world's solutions and there wasn't a chance in hell anyone would elect him for president. There was a mindset that needed to be addressed and shattered - it has sh it to do with merit.

Face that ... new solution please.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:38:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:31:57 PM, Outspoken wrote:
I'm not talking about now, when something like that is a logical proposal because we do not face the amount of inequality, racial intolerance (that was fundamental to especially southern culture) and hatred. I'm talking about then - when systems, laws and institutions were all built on notions of inequality. The very truth of being of a certain race regardless your abilities, merit, contributions meant to those in power that you were inferior.

Your new solution? Because what you've proposed for that day in age is clearly insufficient. It's easy to look around now and think "you do a good job you get good rewards." But let's really go back. Obama could be the most brilliant man on earth with all the world's solutions and there wasn't a chance in hell anyone would elect him for president. There was a mindset that needed to be addressed and shattered - it has sh it to do with merit.

Face that ... new solution please.
I don't see what you're trying to say. Why wouldn't it have worked then?
You shouldn't combat racism with racism. You should use information. That is our most powerful tool.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:13:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"...Racism with racism?"

You may want to look up the definition of racism, before you make the very ignorant assertion that affirmative action is racist. That's pretty laughable. I understand if you may feel that it is unfair, but racist? That's melodramatic at best.

Goodness, I've been having these discussions for ten years and that this mindset still exists never ceases to amaze me.

What am I trying to say? I'm trying to understand what you think affirmative action was trying to resolve. I don't think you know. I think you, like many others, think that affirmative action was all about achieving equality by giving people unfair advantages regardless if they were qualified - that's a surface level, vindictive, victim vantage point. Mostly people who feel slighted in some way hold this view.

They refuse to think about the grave and complex problems that those in a position to solve the effects of a fundamentally racist society, faced. Get that? We were not dealing with a handful of racist people, we were dealing with a racist *society* - it pervaded the essential ways in which we functioned together.

Affirmative action attempted to (and I wouldn't call it successful, but I've witness its effects) address myriad complexities in our social environment that simply would not have been addressed solely by "judging people based on their merits." Don't be so simpleminded.

Why would someone who does not see all people as equal, suddenly without any outside forces, education, and/or regulations, begin to feel compelled to judge someone he strongly, vehemently believes is inherently inferior to him, fairly? Lol or would you propose that we fund the "Moral police" to ensure they adhere to your merits-based logic?

Furthermore, what it is about this human condition that existed like the common cold during that time and still exists today can't you understand?

Racists don't care about merit. They never have - a n#$$32 is a n#$$32. That's what I'm saying. And those same racists were in power and constructing institutions and systems that upheld their racists beliefs - ensuring the suffering of others.

Again, how exactly, do you begin to break down that mentality and those systems to allow for other groups of people to fairly exist on a leveled playing field with the same freedoms and opportunities as those that fiercely hated them regardless their 220 IQ?

Am I clearing the mental block yet?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:31:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 9:05:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I posted this as a reply to a comment on a video by Fringeelements {youtube.com/watch?v=i4fvLMS_Vos&lc=iGHBL_cHrkOPLIiAW-YojyYImUzdwzpJuPOWvntUYb0} that claimed that monorace societies can have benefits.


Why do you think it provides real benefits? I would understand if you only want to live with healthy people or smart people, but basing a society on something that is not constant is stupid. If a society is made up of all smart people, it's made up of all smart people. If you want to have a society of all whites or whatever in order to only live with smart people, you're ignoring all the smart people of other races and the dumb people of your race. You get what I'm saying? Since race is not defined by things like intelligence but rather skin colour and ancestry, you can't use it to justify separation for those reasons. I mean, if I put people with blonde hair in a group and compare them against people with black hair, any differences with things like IQ can't really be explained by hair colour. You can't group people and then use comparisons between those groups to make a point. The groupings have nothing to do with the differences, since the groupings were not based on that. The differences can be explained by the difference between individuals by themselves. Even within races, people's IQ and things like that vary. That means that comparisons between arbitrary groups can't be sound unless they account for that.
If you want to group people together and compare them, you need a basis for those groupings.

Why do you think its okay to justify exclusion based on certain charchteristics (like intelligent) but not by other charchteristics (like race)?

The race realism doesn't mean that it's in favor of race nationalism. However, there are other justifications for race nationalism, such as reduction in ethnic conflicts..

" He found that more ethnically heterogeneous nations had more ethnic conflict"

Also:

"Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There's also emperical evience that greater levels of ethnic diversity leads to less happy population and less social trust.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:59:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.


I know what you're meaning to say, that biologically your race has nothing to do with our intelligence and abilities, and with that I would like to agree.

But I'd like to point out how this can quickly become challenged by one's environment and the views imposed upon him by others/by behaviors toward him. These factors can affect his ability to reach his full potential and be masked by his race when it occurs to others that look just like him on large scales. It's not because he was [insert race], but it was because of what other people thought about his race and what that did or did not afford him in life.

You can replace race with gender, class, sexual orientation, etc. - the common denominator is *environment.*

And that my friends is how sh it remains remarkably interesting these days. ;)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:10:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

heritability of IQ is said to be placed at around 0.6 give or take. There's no way that intelligence is independent of biology. To say otherwise would to claim that a fish could be as intelligent as a human. It can't. Intelligent =/= Knowledge.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:37:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:10:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

heritability of IQ is said to be placed at around 0.6 give or take. There's no way that intelligence is independent of biology. To say otherwise would to claim that a fish could be as intelligent as a human. It can't. Intelligent =/= Knowledge.

It doesn't matter any way, training, education, and experience still contribute more on the intelligent of individual. The fact that many Negros can demonstrate superior intelligent already proved that racial barrier to intelligent, if truly existed, can be overcome with ease.

Plus we don't really use IQ alone in modern society anymore. Most is done by the machine (computer, calculator etc). So yes, I think knowledge is more important now a day. Take it this way when you go for an interview the first thing to consider is your job experience not your IQ result is it not?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:31:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Isn't race realism more about explaining reality than advocating certain policies?

Sure, race realists tend to support certain policies (things that allow or involve more racial segregation), but race realism in and of itself is really just a theory about why things are as they are with regards to different races.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:58:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 3:37:32 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:10:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

heritability of IQ is said to be placed at around 0.6 give or take. There's no way that intelligence is independent of biology. To say otherwise would to claim that a fish could be as intelligent as a human. It can't. Intelligent =/= Knowledge.

It doesn't matter any way, training, education, and experience still contribute more on the intelligent of individual. The fact that many Negros can demonstrate superior intelligent already proved that racial barrier to intelligent, if truly existed, can be overcome with ease.

Dismiss what I said without a rebuttal, and just repeat what you said earlier. You do know what a heritability is right? Heritability is how much variations in X is determined by variation in genetics vs. variation in environment. A heritability of 1, means that environment has no influence while a heritability of 0, means that biology has no influence.

Plus we don't really use IQ alone in modern society anymore.

Yes we do. IQ has been a great predictor of education level a person will obtain as well as the groups average income (higher IQ = higher income).

Most is done by the machine (computer, calculator etc).

What stuff are you referring to. The stuff that requires IQ isn't just plugging stuff into a computer. Let's take for example math problems. Having a powerful computer or calculator means nothing if you don't know how to go about solving the problem, or what equations and methods to use. Also, if you're solving a complex problem, programming becomes relevant, and if you don't know how to program its nothing. The computer is not intelligent and is only as useful if the user is intelligent enough to use it. These are all skills that one needs at least an average IQ to learn.

So yes, I think knowledge is more important now a day. Take it this way when you go for an interview the first thing to consider is your job experience not your IQ result is it not?

Knowledge is even less important nowadays because you can just google search stuff.

The first thing people care about in an interview is your education. That's why you put your education down first and your job experience later.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:26:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:13:52 PM, Outspoken wrote:
"...Racism with racism?"

You may want to look up the definition of racism, before you make the very ignorant assertion that affirmative action is racist. That's pretty laughable. I understand if you may feel that it is unfair, but racist? That's melodramatic at best.

It's giving someone an advantage because of race.

Goodness, I've been having these discussions for ten years and that this mindset still exists never ceases to amaze me.

What am I trying to say? I'm trying to understand what you think affirmative action was trying to resolve. I don't think you know. I think you, like many others, think that affirmative action was all about achieving equality by giving people unfair advantages regardless if they were qualified - that's a surface level, vindictive, victim vantage point. Mostly people who feel slighted in some way hold this view.

They refuse to think about the grave and complex problems that those in a position to solve the effects of a fundamentally racist society, faced. Get that? We were not dealing with a handful of racist people, we were dealing with a racist *society* - it pervaded the essential ways in which we functioned together.

Affirmative action attempted to (and I wouldn't call it successful, but I've witness its effects) address myriad complexities in our social environment that simply would not have been addressed solely by "judging people based on their merits." Don't be so simpleminded.

Why would someone who does not see all people as equal, suddenly without any outside forces, education, and/or regulations, begin to feel compelled to judge someone he strongly, vehemently believes is inherently inferior to him, fairly? Lol or would you propose that we fund the "Moral police" to ensure they adhere to your merits-based logic?
I'm an anarchist. I'm against all forms of regulation (except for things like theft and murder). Using coercion to solve a problem is never good.

To combat racism, don't reward racists. That's literally all there is to it.
Furthermore, what it is about this human condition that existed like the common cold during that time and still exists today can't you understand?

Racists don't care about merit. They never have - a n#$$32 is a n#$$32. That's what I'm saying. And those same racists were in power and constructing institutions and systems that upheld their racists beliefs - ensuring the suffering of others.
And who exactly gave them that power?
Again, how exactly, do you begin to break down that mentality and those systems to allow for other groups of people to fairly exist on a leveled playing field with the same freedoms and opportunities as those that fiercely hated them regardless their 220 IQ?
As said above, stop rewarding racists.
Am I clearing the mental block yet?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:30:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:31:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 9:05:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I posted this as a reply to a comment on a video by Fringeelements {youtube.com/watch?v=i4fvLMS_Vos&lc=iGHBL_cHrkOPLIiAW-YojyYImUzdwzpJuPOWvntUYb0} that claimed that monorace societies can have benefits.


Why do you think it provides real benefits? I would understand if you only want to live with healthy people or smart people, but basing a society on something that is not constant is stupid. If a society is made up of all smart people, it's made up of all smart people. If you want to have a society of all whites or whatever in order to only live with smart people, you're ignoring all the smart people of other races and the dumb people of your race. You get what I'm saying? Since race is not defined by things like intelligence but rather skin colour and ancestry, you can't use it to justify separation for those reasons. I mean, if I put people with blonde hair in a group and compare them against people with black hair, any differences with things like IQ can't really be explained by hair colour. You can't group people and then use comparisons between those groups to make a point. The groupings have nothing to do with the differences, since the groupings were not based on that. The differences can be explained by the difference between individuals by themselves. Even within races, people's IQ and things like that vary. That means that comparisons between arbitrary groups can't be sound unless they account for that.
If you want to group people together and compare them, you need a basis for those groupings.

Why do you think its okay to justify exclusion based on certain charchteristics (like intelligent) but not by other charchteristics (like race)?
Because discriminating based on intelligence actually has a goal in mind. It wants everyone in a society to be intelligent. Discriminating based on race does not do that. It's superficial.

The race realism doesn't mean that it's in favor of race nationalism. However, there are other justifications for race nationalism, such as reduction in ethnic conflicts..
Which are caused by racism. I don't see your point.


" He found that more ethnically heterogeneous nations had more ethnic conflict"

Also:

"Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There's also emperical evience that greater levels of ethnic diversity leads to less happy population and less social trust.
Why would that be?

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:31:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:10:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

heritability of IQ is said to be placed at around 0.6 give or take. There's no way that intelligence is independent of biology. To say otherwise would to claim that a fish could be as intelligent as a human. It can't. Intelligent =/= Knowledge.

More variability within races than between.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:44:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

Do genetics play a role?

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

It would be a pretty crazy coincidence if, for the last 100,000 years or so, human beings only evolved physical differences and not any cognitive differences.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:59:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:44:09 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

Do genetics play a role?

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

It would be a pretty crazy coincidence if, for the last 100,000 years or so, human beings only evolved physical differences and not any cognitive differences.

You're using arbitrary groupings to compare those differences.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:03:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:31:35 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:10:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

heritability of IQ is said to be placed at around 0.6 give or take. There's no way that intelligence is independent of biology. To say otherwise would to claim that a fish could be as intelligent as a human. It can't. Intelligent =/= Knowledge.

More variability within races than between.

You have to be careful when you make that argument. There's more variation within the chimpanzee genome than there is between the chimpanzee and Sapien genome, but we are not chimps. There's a big difference in scale when it comes to measuring within a group's genome and between group genomes.

For example, the average human weighs around 150lbs [1] while the average chimp weighs around 100lbs [2]. That's a difference of only about 50lbs. Within the human population though, you have people who naturally weigh anywhere from 80-300lbs (more or less than that is usually do to disease or obesity) and with chimps you'd see 50-200 lbs being the fringe. The differences within species weight is greater than the difference between species average weight, but clearly there is still a difference in average weight between the two species.

That's the problem with countering racial differences by pointing out that there's greater variation within races than between them. You're comparing whole genome variation within a group to average variation between groups.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu...
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:06:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:59:15 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:44:09 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

Do genetics play a role?

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

It would be a pretty crazy coincidence if, for the last 100,000 years or so, human beings only evolved physical differences and not any cognitive differences.

You're using arbitrary groupings to compare those differences.

I guess it depends how you define "arbitrary". The line separating Europe and Asia is arbitrary, but still, if you travel East far enough you'll start to notice that everyone has black hair and epicanthal folds.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:38:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 1:03:09 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:31:35 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:10:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

heritability of IQ is said to be placed at around 0.6 give or take. There's no way that intelligence is independent of biology. To say otherwise would to claim that a fish could be as intelligent as a human. It can't. Intelligent =/= Knowledge.

More variability within races than between.

You have to be careful when you make that argument. There's more differences within chimpanzee than there are between chimpanzees and Sapiens, but we are not chimps. There's a big difference in scale when it comes to measuring within a group's genome and between group genomes.

For example, the average human weighs around 150lbs [1] while the average chimp weighs around 100lbs [2]. That's a difference of only about 50lbs. Within the human population though, you have people who naturally weigh anywhere from 80-300lbs (more or less than that is usually do to disease or obesity) and with chimps you'd see 50-200 lbs being the fringe. The differences within species weight is greater than the difference between species average weight, but clearly there is still a difference in average weight between the two species.

That's the problem with countering racial differences by pointing out that there's greater variation within races than between them. You're comparing whole genome variation within a group to average variation between groups.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu...

fx'd error.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:30:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:31:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 9:05:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I posted this as a reply to a comment on a video by Fringeelements {youtube.com/watch?v=i4fvLMS_Vos&lc=iGHBL_cHrkOPLIiAW-YojyYImUzdwzpJuPOWvntUYb0} that claimed that monorace societies can have benefits.


Why do you think it provides real benefits? I would understand if you only want to live with healthy people or smart people, but basing a society on something that is not constant is stupid. If a society is made up of all smart people, it's made up of all smart people. If you want to have a society of all whites or whatever in order to only live with smart people, you're ignoring all the smart people of other races and the dumb people of your race. You get what I'm saying? Since race is not defined by things like intelligence but rather skin colour and ancestry, you can't use it to justify separation for those reasons. I mean, if I put people with blonde hair in a group and compare them against people with black hair, any differences with things like IQ can't really be explained by hair colour. You can't group people and then use comparisons between those groups to make a point. The groupings have nothing to do with the differences, since the groupings were not based on that. The differences can be explained by the difference between individuals by themselves. Even within races, people's IQ and things like that vary. That means that comparisons between arbitrary groups can't be sound unless they account for that.
If you want to group people together and compare them, you need a basis for those groupings.

Why do you think its okay to justify exclusion based on certain charchteristics (like intelligent) but not by other charchteristics (like race)?
Because discriminating based on intelligence actually has a goal in mind. It wants everyone in a society to be intelligent. Discriminating based on race does not do that. It's superficial.

The race realism doesn't mean that it's in favor of race nationalism. However, there are other justifications for race nationalism, such as reduction in ethnic conflicts..
Which are caused by racism. I don't see your point.

Right, and the conflict would be best be avoided through creation of race nationalism.


" He found that more ethnically heterogeneous nations had more ethnic conflict"

Also:

"Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There's also emperical evience that greater levels of ethnic diversity leads to less happy population and less social trust.
Why would that be?



Because, people have a natural tendency to favor their own group/race. This is true even among progressives that are so called "not-racist". People have more empathy for people of their own race. Studies have confirmed this.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:52:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:13:52 PM, Outspoken wrote:
"...Racism with racism?"

You may want to look up the definition of racism, before you make the very ignorant assertion that affirmative action is racist. That's pretty laughable. I understand if you may feel that it is unfair, but racist? That's melodramatic at best.

Well said.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:02:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 1:03:09 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:31:35 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:10:34 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

heritability of IQ is said to be placed at around 0.6 give or take. There's no way that intelligence is independent of biology. To say otherwise would to claim that a fish could be as intelligent as a human. It can't. Intelligent =/= Knowledge.

More variability within races than between.

You have to be careful when you make that argument. There's more variation within the chimpanzee genome than there is between the chimpanzee and Sapien genome, but we are not chimps. There's a big difference in scale when it comes to measuring within a group's genome and between group genomes.

For example, the average human weighs around 150lbs [1] while the average chimp weighs around 100lbs [2]. That's a difference of only about 50lbs. Within the human population though, you have people who naturally weigh anywhere from 80-300lbs (more or less than that is usually do to disease or obesity) and with chimps you'd see 50-200 lbs being the fringe. The differences within species weight is greater than the difference between species average weight, but clearly there is still a difference in average weight between the two species.

That's the problem with countering racial differences by pointing out that there's greater variation within races than between them. You're comparing whole genome variation within a group to average variation between groups.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu...

So what?I don't see your point. If you look on a case-by-case basis, you can see what traits certain organisms have.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:03:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 1:06:22 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:59:15 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:44:09 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:49:38 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
I don't think whites, or blacks, or asians are more intelligent than one another because of race. Intelligent is derived from personal experience, education, training, race play almost no part at all.

Do genetics play a role?

I do think though that Negros can run faster than whites and whites have stronger muscle than asian (if other factors such as nutrition, training etc. are constant). So if you are going to choose a basketball player, it may be wiser to choose Negro over whites.

It would be a pretty crazy coincidence if, for the last 100,000 years or so, human beings only evolved physical differences and not any cognitive differences.

You're using arbitrary groupings to compare those differences.

I guess it depends how you define "arbitrary". The line separating Europe and Asia is arbitrary, but still, if you travel East far enough you'll start to notice that everyone has black hair and epicanthal folds.

Can I get a statistic for that>
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:25:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 2:22:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:30:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:31:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 9:05:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I posted this as a reply to a comment on a video by Fringeelements {youtube.com/watch?v=i4fvLMS_Vos&lc=iGHBL_cHrkOPLIiAW-YojyYImUzdwzpJuPOWvntUYb0} that claimed that monorace societies can have benefits.


Why do you think it provides real benefits? I would understand if you only want to live with healthy people or smart people, but basing a society on something that is not constant is stupid. If a society is made up of all smart people, it's made up of all smart people. If you want to have a society of all whites or whatever in order to only live with smart people, you're ignoring all the smart people of other races and the dumb people of your race. You get what I'm saying? Since race is not defined by things like intelligence but rather skin colour and ancestry, you can't use it to justify separation for those reasons. I mean, if I put people with blonde hair in a group and compare them against people with black hair, any differences with things like IQ can't really be explained by hair colour. You can't group people and then use comparisons between those groups to make a point. The groupings have nothing to do with the differences, since the groupings were not based on that. The differences can be explained by the difference between individuals by themselves. Even within races, people's IQ and things like that vary. That means that comparisons between arbitrary groups can't be sound unless they account for that.
If you want to group people together and compare them, you need a basis for those groupings.

Why do you think its okay to justify exclusion based on certain charchteristics (like intelligent) but not by other charchteristics (like race)?
Because discriminating based on intelligence actually has a goal in mind. It wants everyone in a society to be intelligent. Discriminating based on race does not do that. It's superficial.

The race realism doesn't mean that it's in favor of race nationalism. However, there are other justifications for race nationalism, such as reduction in ethnic conflicts..
Which are caused by racism. I don't see your point.

Right, and the conflict would be best be avoided through creation of race nationalism.

When a fire starts you put it out. You don't try to move everything out of the way.


" He found that more ethnically heterogeneous nations had more ethnic conflict"

Also:

"Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There's also emperical evience that greater levels of ethnic diversity leads to less happy population and less social trust.
Why would that be?



Because, people have a natural tendency to favor their own group/race. This is true even among progressives that are so called "not-racist". People have more empathy for people of their own race. Studies have confirmed this.

Do you think that should be the case?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 4:03:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 3:25:46 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/11/2013 2:22:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:30:22 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:31:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/10/2013 9:05:50 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
I posted this as a reply to a comment on a video by Fringeelements {youtube.com/watch?v=i4fvLMS_Vos&lc=iGHBL_cHrkOPLIiAW-YojyYImUzdwzpJuPOWvntUYb0} that claimed that monorace societies can have benefits.


Why do you think it provides real benefits? I would understand if you only want to live with healthy people or smart people, but basing a society on something that is not constant is stupid. If a society is made up of all smart people, it's made up of all smart people. If you want to have a society of all whites or whatever in order to only live with smart people, you're ignoring all the smart people of other races and the dumb people of your race. You get what I'm saying? Since race is not defined by things like intelligence but rather skin colour and ancestry, you can't use it to justify separation for those reasons. I mean, if I put people with blonde hair in a group and compare them against people with black hair, any differences with things like IQ can't really be explained by hair colour. You can't group people and then use comparisons between those groups to make a point. The groupings have nothing to do with the differences, since the groupings were not based on that. The differences can be explained by the difference between individuals by themselves. Even within races, people's IQ and things like that vary. That means that comparisons between arbitrary groups can't be sound unless they account for that.
If you want to group people together and compare them, you need a basis for those groupings.

Why do you think its okay to justify exclusion based on certain charchteristics (like intelligent) but not by other charchteristics (like race)?
Because discriminating based on intelligence actually has a goal in mind. It wants everyone in a society to be intelligent. Discriminating based on race does not do that. It's superficial.

The race realism doesn't mean that it's in favor of race nationalism. However, there are other justifications for race nationalism, such as reduction in ethnic conflicts..
Which are caused by racism. I don't see your point.

Right, and the conflict would be best be avoided through creation of race nationalism.

When a fire starts you put it out. You don't try to move everything out of the way.


" He found that more ethnically heterogeneous nations had more ethnic conflict"

Also:

"Case studies of the United States, Africa and South-East Asia find that multi-ethnic societies are less charitable and less able to cooperate to develop public infrastructure."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There's also emperical evience that greater levels of ethnic diversity leads to less happy population and less social trust.
Why would that be?



Because, people have a natural tendency to favor their own group/race. This is true even among progressives that are so called "not-racist". People have more empathy for people of their own race. Studies have confirmed this.

Do you think that should be the case?

Ethnocentrism is not something that can be removed since its part of our internal charcheteristics. It would be better if there were ethnic central nations because people would be better off and happier that way.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 4:04:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
that analogy of the fire doesn't make since. You don't make a cobustible condition in the first place, in this case create a situation where multiculturalism will occur.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 4:10:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 4:04:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
that analogy of the fire doesn't make since. You don't make a cobustible condition in the first place, in this case allow racism.

Fixed.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush