This Ought To Get Some Replies

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Since, in the long run, the busier these forums are, the more money I make, I couldn't let this comment from Phil153 get buried in another thread. So I repeat it here:

"The fact is that some races and cultures just aren't cut out for civilised society. They breed like rabbits and exhibit widespread features of low intelligence, poor coping skills and aggressive, anti social behaviour. Half of all murders (and much of the crime) in the U.S. are caused by a particular race, and as a minority group, I'm convinced they don't have the brain capacity to survive and contribute positively in modern civilisation. Despite many years and government efforts, the SAT scores of a certain race remain shockingly low. They are on the border of retardation. Even the elite of this race fail to excel. Compare this with any other minority and the results are clear to anyone without a bias. Asians routinely outperform whites and are disproportionately represented at elite universities, despite being a minority and in spite of poverty and limited integration into society."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually a funny quote, because it contains some sort of forbidden truth. Everyone knows that there are racial differences amongst humans, but we don't talk about it.

Just watch track&field sports. It is obvious to everyone that black athletes dominate running. I mean you can't argue against all the world records and all of the white guys coming in last. Same with boxing. We all know the quote "never bet on the white guy". This is a rule made out of experience. Look at the french soccer national team. 1 white guy as goalie, 9 black guys + Zidanne and that despite the fact that France has basically a white population. In other sports it is different. For some reason you only see white swimmers set records.

While this is all more or less accepted, people don't like to talk about the possible difference in intelligence. It is similar to breaking an unwritten codex. Still there is evidence also. Did you know that there is only one black chess grandmaster (Maurice Ashley, USA) in the whole world and his actual playing strength is currently below GM level?

I call myself a racist, but not in a negative way. I don't hate other races and I don't fight them. I just think that there are small differences amongst races which make them a favorite or an underdog in certain areas. Some run faster, some swim faster, some score higher averages on IQ tests, some grow taller and so on. Basically this doesn't have to be bad, just know your strengths and make the best out of it.

Shandrax,

You are making the mistakes that most ignorant racists make altough trying to coach it in palatable terms.

You see, red heads have stronger phrenomes, olive skins don't get as sunburnt as white skins. I am sure there is a correlation between eye color and color blindness. Blod type is more important than apperaances when it comes to blood donations. Those are all superficial features, like saying tall people are better at basketball. It means very little. It is the concept of race that strangely enough is odd.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
Shandrax,

You are making the mistakes that most ignorant racists make altough trying to coach it in palatable terms.

You see, red heads have stronger phrenomes, olive skins don't get as sunburnt as white skins. I am sure there is a correlation between eye color and color blindness. Blod type is more important than apperaances when it comes to blood donations. Those are all superficial features, like saying tall people are better at basketball. It means very little. It is the concept of race that strangely enough is odd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just going with statistics and I am actually trying to be as objective as possible. It is simply a fact that african americans outrun all white athletes from the US and Europe combined. In France and the Netherlands for example black kids get free education just like white kids, but almost none of them ends up studying physics or math. Now every once in a while one will make it and prove the statistics wrong, but is that really the case? I think it is all within the usual variance.

In my opinion it is ridiculous to assume that racial differences only apply to the likelyhood of getting sunburns. Still you can't have a reasonable discussion about the subject. I remember the heart-medication that only worked on black people and all the discussion about it in the media. The subject is simply forbidden.

P.S.: Before I forget it. If someone ever makes a study about the spread of ADS (attention deficite syndrom) amongst races, I predict that asians have the lowest percentage.

[Shandrax]

I guess, this one fits it best [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...seekers-p1.php

shandrax,

you are stil making the mistake... race is not a scientific definable concept afaik. Correct me if I am wrong.

By the way gene pools doesn't do the trick as its boundaries are not aligned with anything like what people are trying to say when they use the word "race".

[ QUOTE ]
race is not a scientific definable concept afaik

[/ QUOTE ]
MidGe - How about ethnicity? Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say 'race' - population groups that have developed distinct traits after long periods of reproductive isolation. No different to the term 'breed' amongst dogs - no one would claim a rottweiler and a labrador can't be meaningfully categorized into separate groups. Or that intelligence and behavioral differences don't exist as well as physical ones. Both apparently derive from the same wolf like ancestor not that long ago. Why can't it be the case for humans?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
race is not a scientific definable concept afaik

[/ QUOTE ]
MidGe - How about ethnicity? Everyone knows what we're talking about when we say 'race' - population groups that have developed distinct traits after long periods of reproductive isolation. No different to the term 'breed' amongst dogs - no one would claim a rottweiler and a labrador can't be meaningfully categorized into separate groups. Or that intelligence and behavioral differences don't exist as well as physical ones. Both apparently derive from the same wolf like ancestor not that long ago. Why can't it be the case for humans?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you know the answer to this. Because people can be/are insulted.

Hiya Phil,

I may be wrong, but to me ethnicity always had a cultural if not linguistic connotation. That makes it incompatible with the way "race" is trying to be used. BTW, I see great differences in cultures and I find some cultures not vey salubrious in parts. But I am not racist in the sense, that whatever the culture a child adopted by a different culture from birth, he will pretty much tend to fit the norms of the adaoptive culture. I have seen this often enough and believe there are citations available for this should someone really be that interetested.

Breed amongst dogs, is a slightly different issue. Usually interbreeding is degenrative, where it seems to me anyway, that chilkderen of "mixed" parentage, seem mostly the display strength and beauty.

The better correspondence for breed when refering to human, may be such caharacteristics as average weight, colour of hair and eye, skin type. But again none of those sufficient to be classify as a race. Some of of one so called "race" can, and will, display characteristics associated with another. Again pointing out that "race" as is it is used is an abstract concept with no correspondence in reality.

[Shandrax]

This kinda reminds me of the discussion about gay people. Historically being gay has always been seen as a psycho-disorder. Gay people were simply regarded as abnormal or sick. Then the gay-movement hit on a brilliant idea. Why not stop discrimination by changing the definition of normality? Normal people don't get discriminated, so once the status of normality has been archieved, gays will be fully accepted by society. Finally on some US national congress of psychiatrists, being gay was VOTED as being normal. Voting as scientific method of verification! Why didn't the pope hit on that before? There is a god, we have voted on it and god won 28:4!!

What worked for gays is now supposed to work for other minorities also. Historically the definition of races was absolutely clear. Nowadays the ethnic-lobby amongst scientists is trying to soften it up. Once they archieved their goal, the word "race" in it's historical meaning either doesn't exist anymore or it contains a mixture of everything so that you cannot define it anymore. If that happens, nobody cannot be discriminated based upon his race anymore, at least that's the logic behind it.

Isn't this a bit cheap? I mean, when will they vote that black=white and show Michael Jackson as proof? Aren't we betraying ourselves by adjusting our language for the sake political correctness? Does this really have anything to do with science or is it just a nice gesture?

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
shandrax,

you are stil making the mistake... race is not a scientific definable concept afaik. Correct me if I am wrong.

By the way gene pools doesn't do the trick as its boundaries are not aligned with anything like what people are trying to say when they use the word "race".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a native english speaker, so I can't go into detail about the subleties of the true meaning of the word "race", but I assume you are recurring to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Race_and_ethnicity

As mentioned in the article, it is a matter of perspective. Some scientists say A, others say B and I bet you can even find one for C.