Race Is Real

[GMM]

Regarding NYT science writer Nicholas Wade's new book:


Or, in other words: Your eyes aren't fooling you, and those sociology and cultural-anthropology professors you had in college were full of it. Human races exist.


Wade has been gently broaching this subject for a long time, regularly reporting new genetic findings on the pages of the Times and even including a chapter on race in his terrific 2006 book Before the Dawn. But in his new work, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, he dives in head-first. He covers everything, from the hard facts that establish the biological reality of race to highly speculative theories about how, exactly, racial groups might differ from each other genetically.

I must admit its tough making a prediction on how this will be treated. It would've been easier to predict widespread outrage if this book had come out a month ago. But you have to wonder if all the Two Minutes of Hate oxygen has been sucked out of the room with the Donald Sterling affair. Then again its easy to see how the defenders of the established (inaccurate, but nonetheless established) racial orthodoxy would do their best to have us ignore the hell out of this. I'm leaning towards the latter. Acknowledging that race is indeed real could constitute the greatest possible threat to the left's power. I'm sure they'd much rather have NOBODY hear about this.

In the meantime the alleged Science experts on this board can tell us why Wade is wrong.

Race Is Real. What Does that Mean for Society?

 

[qazplm]

ah yes

a guy writes a book, it MUST be true then. No peer review, nothing remotely approaching scientific consensus, but the guy's a scientist, and he says what you want to believe so, good enough.

From your own link (and from the few usual suspects who actually buy what you and he are selling and FROM HIM):

"Wade himself concedes that these chapters contain much that isn't
proven, and his ideas have raised eyebrows even among experts who like
much about the book and are not beholden to political correctness.
Here's Bell Curve coauthor Charles Murray, in his Wall Street Journal
review: "Mr. Wade chose to expose his readers to a broad range of
speculative analyses, some of which are brilliant and some of which are
weak." And here's a tweet from evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker:
"Disagree w much of Wade (goes beyond data, gets some wrong) but he
explodes race-is-only-a-social-construction myth."

Then he goes on to list examples of things he is discussing:

Example 1? Has nothing to do with race, but with class.
Example 2? Word Salad but appears to be making the "Asians are really smart" argument.
Example 3? Literally, phrenology and arguing that a single gene causes violence.
Example 4? Jews are more intelligent than Christians.

Yeah, by all means defend that load of crap all you want. And lol at your predictable attitude towards Sterling.

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by GMM:
Regarding NYT science writer Nicholas Wade's new book:


Or, in other words: Your eyes aren't fooling you, and those sociology and cultural-anthropology professors you had in college were full of it. Human races exist.


Wade has been gently broaching this subject for a long time, regularly reporting new genetic findings on the pages of the Times and even including a chapter on race in his terrific 2006 book Before the Dawn. But in his new work, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, he dives in head-first. He covers everything, from the hard facts that establish the biological reality of race to highly speculative theories about how, exactly, racial groups might differ from each other genetically.

I must admit its tough making a prediction on how this will be treated. It would've been easier to predict widespread outrage if this book had come out a month ago. But you have to wonder if all the Two Minutes of Hate oxygen has been sucked out of the room with the Donald Sterling affair. Then again its easy to see how the defenders of the established (inaccurate, but nonetheless established) racial orthodoxy would do their best to have us ignore the hell out of this. I'm leaning towards the latter. Acknowledging that race is indeed real could constitute the greatest possible threat to the left's power. I'm sure they'd much rather have NOBODY hear about this.

In the meantime the alleged Science experts on this board can tell us why Wade is wrong.

I didn't read the link. I don't intend to. But I will say this: you'll never get a good discussion on this, because the implications of something like this being true will be horrific. I'm not saying it is true, because I think a lot of behavioral factors are based more on economic class and social issues, but this is the kind of issue that will never actually get serious scientific study. So, you should probably just save your fingers.

 

[GMM]

But I will say this: you'll never get a good discussion on this, because the implications of something like this being true will be horrific.


Yes, in people's minds the implications would be horrific. But only because they've bought into falsehoods and are afraid of the Thought Police. But you're that it will be very difficult to have a good discussion about this. Which is why I predicted that it will be ignored.


.....but this is the kind of issue that will never actually get serious scientific study.


Yes, given the intolerance of those who control the national discussion regarding race (unfortunately the left) it will be tough to study this. But its happening. Its very difficult to suppress the pursuit of the truth. The commisars of PC can try but ultimately they'll fail.


So, you should probably just save your fingers.


No. We simply can't have a society oriented around lies if we want success. Besides, its too much fun making those who claim to believe in Science deny there's any scientific validity to what Wade (and others) are saying.


This post was edited on 5/7 5:26 PM by GMM

 

[GMM]

As if you'd change your mind......


......if it was peer reviewed. You'd denounce it no matter what. Its simply way, way, way too threatening to acknowledge that it might be true.


Wade himself concedes that these chapters contain much that isn't proven.....


So if he doesn't declare that 100% of what he's saying has been proven to be true then none of it is true? Great scientific analysis on your part, btw. This is why scientists explore, will continue to explore, and should explore this topic: to determine what is true. But not as long as people who share your narrow-mindedness are in charge. No, instead we must denounce the heretics!


Did it occur to you that he put the word "Troublesome" in the book's title, and admits that what he's saying hasn't been 100% proven true, because of totalitarians like you?


Example 1? Has nothing to do with race, but with class.


No, it has to do with genetics. You're assuming that there are no genetic differences between those who are wealthy and those who are poor. Quite an unscientific leap of faith.


Example 2? Word Salad but appears to be making the "Asians are really smart" argument.


Why do you have a problem acknowledging that northeast Asians have a higher average IQ? That's right, because you're a typically intolerant leftist who can't handle racial heresy.


Example 3? Literally, phrenology and arguing that a single gene causes violence.


As usual you have to distort. He said there is one gene "that seems to contribute to violence". Do you deny there is scientific evidence for this? No, you just try to punish the heretic.


Example 4? Jews are more intelligent than Christians.


Why do you have a problem with this? More smashing of heresy on your part.


Your response is perfect though. It shows how tough it will be for any scientist to pursue any truths regarding this issue. At every step along the way they'll encounter the Thought Police like yourself.


This post was edited on 5/7 5:29 PM by GMM

 

[qazplm]

much like your brethren on here

you have a hard time with the word "much."

Here, let me help:

Much (adj): great in quantity, measure, or degree

So no, it's not that almost 100% of it is "proven to be true" it's "much" of what he says has not proven to be true, from his own mouth.

Actually, none of what he says has actually been proven to be true. Peer review, scientific testing, actual evidence that's gone through the scientific process...nada, zip, zilch.

Clearly ridiculous ideas like phrenology? He's all over that. A single gene responsible for violence? Yep. The idea that RELIGIOUS preference is genetic (Jews smarter than Christians?). Ditto.

I have zero problem if he wants to "explore the topic." Explore away. LOL He put the words "hasn't been proven" because, wait for it, it hasn't been proven. He's the wild-haired guy who says, "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens."

No, it has to do with class. There is no evidence that wealth changes your genes in any remotely significant way. AT BEST the increased richness of diet MIGHT have a tiny effect on a few genes getting turned on or off, but not a lot of research on that, and nothing that suggests it does anything super important. That has nothing to do with race.

I have no idea if "NE Asians have a higher average IQ" or who they are higher then. Of course, there are literally billions of people who are Asian, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them have never taken an IQ test. And I'm pretty sure the idea that IQ tests are remotely accurate indicators of much at all has long since debunked.

Yes, I deny that "there is scientific evidence" for it. Clearly you don't understand what does, and does not constitute "scientific evidence." Here's a hint, publishing a book does not equal "scientific evidence." There's an actual process scientists go through (and it usually doesn't involve a book).

My problem is that RELIGION is not genetic, so the idea that being lower IQ equals Christian and higher IQ equals Jewish is a double level of idiotic.

Yes, it will be very tough for a "scientist" to prove these things without actually going through the scientific process and submitting their work for peer review. They can pursue it all they want to, until they actually put their work up for testing and scrutiny, it will be meaningless.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: As if you'd change your mind......

Originally posted by GMM:



No, it has to do with genetics. You're assuming that there are no genetic differences between those who are wealthy and those who are poor. Quite an unscientific leap of faith.

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that all rich people and all poor people are genetically different. Please tell me that. I refuse to believe someone affiliated with Purdue would make such an absurd statement.

My wife and I have a higher net worth than each of our parents already. Explain, using genetics.

 

[GMM]

Re: As if you'd change your mind......

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that all rich people and all poor people are genetically different.

Please tell me you accidentally used the word "all".

What I, and people like Nicholas Wade, are saying is that genes play a role in people's abilities. Since those who are rich mostly got there because of their abilities then their wealth could be related to their genetics. But, you might ask, "What about those who inherited their parent's wealth? Genertics had nothing to do with the fact that they're wealthy." True, but they certainly inherited their parents genes. Likewise, genetics can play a role in whether or not someone is poor. I fully understand why this is threatening to people and how they might twist that into an indictment of poor people for being poor. No, its just an explanation.

Is athletic ability related to genetics? Yes. Then should it surprise anyone that people who have athletic parents are often above-average athletes themselves? No, it doesn't. People seem to be OK with acknowledging this. Same goes for numerous other characteristics.

Is intelligence related to genetics? Yes. Does it help, if you want to get or stay wealthy, to be smart? Yes. Logically, it follows that its possible for the genes of rich people to be different than those of poor people.

My wife and I have a higher net worth than each of our parents already. Explain, using genetics.

You do understand that you're not a carbon copy of your parents, right? You do understand the difference between "genes play role" vs. "genes determine everything", right?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

LOL! I got it. There are genetic differences between some poor people and some rich people. Also, water and air are essential to life. What a stupid topic.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[db]

Re: As if you'd change your mind......

Since those who are rich mostly got there because of their abilities then their wealth could be related to their genetics.

Please tell me you accidentally used the word "mostly."

That is such a loaded statement that you kind of need to explain yourself.

1. Are you referring only to innate abilities, or to the total package of what one is able to do? If you're not sure, please give a percentage.
2. Are you talking about super-rich people (Bill Gates) or about people like my colleague who managed to do well enough career-wise to send his daughter to a private college?

By the way, how do you feel about estate taxes?

 

[GMM]

Re: As if you'd change your mind......

No, I didn't accidentally use the word "mostly". Do you really think the rich got rich because of luck? Or only because they worked hard? Lots of people work hard but they don't get rich. What makes the difference? Yes, natural abilities played a big role. A percentage? OK, I'll get to work on that right away.

Why does this bother you so much?

I'm opposed to estate taxes.

 

[qazplm]

yawn

no one is buying the "this bothers you because it's true" silliness you keep trying.

Yep, lots of people work hard who don't get rich. Lots of smart people work hard who don't get rich. Guess what that suggests? Fortune (luck) absolutely plays a role in some of the people who get rich and some who don't. So does hard work, so does intelligence, so does education, so does the availability of opportunities.

None of that has anything to do with race.

 

[GMM]

Re: yawn

You keep mentioning luck, hard work, education, and opportunities as if that's news. I'm not aware of anyone who denies those things play a role. Why are you mentioning them?

You also mention intelligence. Which is related to genetics. Do you deny that intelligence is related to genetics?

no one is buying the "this bothers you because it's true" silliness you keep trying.

I'll buy that no one is bothered when they stop acting bothered.

 

[qazplm]

here's a summary for you

and after it, you will see that the reason why he "wont get a good discussion on this" is because it's bat guano crazy.


Effectively the guy goes through history and tries to retrofit it, selectively, to show racial differences.
He tries to argue a single gene codes for violence.
He uses phrenology. The study of the skull. Seriously. Phrenology.
He argues Jews are smarter than Christians.

It's just a whole lot of silliness. Then he admits, you know, I don't actually have proof for any of this, but these are great ideas and someone should do some actual science stuff, but they won't.

Go read, see how crazy it is, because you've fallen into the trap of thinking there must be something respectable or scientific in there. I mean at least The Bell Curve made an attempt using actual data and some minor semblance of a scientific process. This makes the The Bell Curve look like the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

Yes, behavioral factors are based on a whole host of things. They are way too complicated to be whittled down into a gene, or race. Twin studies are the perfect platform for this. Two twins, raised in completely different environments, are going to end up being pretty different people in many ways, while also retaining key similarities in other ways. Schizophrenia for example seems to not care a whole lot about what kind of environment you are raised in, while attitudes seem greatly affected by environment (Olson, Vernon, Harris, Aitken, & Jang, 2001).

The level of parental control can either encourage or suppress the expression of a genotype (Bergeman, Plomin, McClearn, Pederson, & Friberg, 1988).

If GMM's favorite new "scientist" were right, then we should see a lot less variability in two twins raised in different environments than we do. If you can't even get identical twins to more or less follow their genes in any predictable manner then how in the world would you get an entire "race" to do so, particularly when the number of "pure" race people is less and less? Most of the people posting here are not "pure." Much of America isn't "pure."

 

[qazplm]

intelligence

first of all isn't a singularly defined term. What TYPE of intelligence are you talking about? There is no one single "number" that rank-orders people by intelligence. IQ is a woefully useless number to do more than categorize in broad swaths. It can identify folks only in gross fashion. I have a pretty high IQ. That means zilch in the grand scheme of things. There are folks with much lower IQs who do much better in life than me, and there are people with much higher IQs who live at home with their parents in their 40s.

Second, genetics plays only a small part in it. Education and environment matter a whole lot more. it's the reason why someone with 100 "IQ" can be much more successful than someone with a 130 "IQ" or even "smarter" than the other person. If your parents value education, and if you receive quality education, with good teachers, then guess what, you've got a pretty good shot.

I've seen the exact thing in action because I received both good and bad education as a child and I had one parent who did not value education, and one who did. My performance, not unpredictability, greatly varied depending on which parent had custody and which schooling I was involved in. The better the school, the better my performance, and the better the parental involvement the better my performance.

My "high IQ" didn't help me much at all. What did help was environment and opportunity.

The fact that folks find your racism and idiocy on a Purdue message board a complete embarrassment does not mean you've somehow "struck a nerve" with the truth.

 

[GMM]

Re: intelligence


What TYPE of intelligence are you talking about?


Yes, there are different types of intelligence and they vary from person to person. Good to see you acknowledge that.


IQ is a woefully useless number to do more than categorize in broad swaths.


Yet for some strange reason colleges and many businesses utilize things like IQ tests, or things related to IQ like SAT/ACT tests, to screen people. They must be stupid for doing this.


That means zilch in the grand scheme of things. There are folks with much lower IQs who do much better in life than me, and there are people with much higher IQs who live at home with their parents in their 40s.


Yet again you make the mistake of mixing individuals with groups. Of course there are individuals with high/low IQ's who succeed/fail. But, tell me, do you deny there is a general pattern for people, based on their intelligence, as it relates to how successful they are?


The fact that folks find your racism and idiocy on a Purdue message board a complete embarrassment does not mean you've somehow "struck a nerve" with the truth.


Did I think there wouldn't be insults thrown my way based on this topic? Of course not.


Listen, I knew there was ZERO chance you'd acknowledge there are genetic differences between racial groups. You are a Liberal Creationist. While you will acknowledge that individuals are genetically different you seem to believe in some Law of Nature that forces all characteristics to equal out from group to group. You are also display your marxist leanings by heavily emphasizing Nurture and denying Nature. The ideas presented by Wade are simply too threatening to you. Your alleged devotion to Science flies out the window when it comes to race. None of this is surprising and I hope everyone reads these posts. They're a useful example of what we face when it comes to doing away with Equality.


This post was edited on 5/8 10:24 AM by GMM

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: intelligence

Originally posted by GMM:


The fact that folks find your racism and idiocy on a Purdue message board a complete embarrassment does not mean you've somehow "struck a nerve" with the truth.

Did I think there wouldn't be insults thrown my way based on this topic? Of course not.

Listen, I knew there was ZERO chance you'd acknowledge there are genetic differences between racial groups. You are a Liberal Creationist. While you will acknowledge that individuals are genetically different you seem to believe in some Law of Nature that forces all characteristics to equal out from group to group. You are also display your marxist leanings by heavily emphasizing Nurture and denying Nature. The ideas presented by Wade are simply too threatening to you. Your alleged devotion to Science flies out the window when it comes to race. None of this is surprising and I hope everyone reads these posts. They're a useful example of what we face when it comes to doing away with Equality.



This post was edited on 5/8 10:24 AM by GMM

You do realize that you are coming across as a supremacist in this thread, correct? There are genetic differences between races, but there is absolutely, positively, no way you can actually believe that all white people are genetically coded to be smarter than all black people, because that's just absurd. Yet, it is what you've said, until you changed it to "some," at which point it became the most pointless discussion in the history of the GD board.

 

[GMM]

Re: intelligence

You do realize that you are coming across as a supremacist in this thread, correct?

No, I don't realize that but I understand why some people would react that way.

There are genetic differences between races........

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

......but there is absolutely, positively, no way you can actually believe that all white people are genetically coded to be smarter than all black people, because that's just absurd. Yet, it is what you've said, until you changed it to "some," at which point it became the most pointless discussion in the history of the GD board.

There you go again with that word "all". Find where I said that. If you do you'd find where you misinterpreted it. I, and others, are simply talking about differences in group characteristics. Not every single individual in a group compared to every single individual in another group.

 

[qazplm]

and his point

typically lost on you, is that if it isn't all, then it is either most (which is no different or less ridiculous than all) or its some which means absolutely nothing. Some blacks are smarter than other blacks. Some whites are smarter than other whites. some Hispanics are smarter than some Asians.

 

[qazplm]

it's important to note

that the genetic differences between the races are primarily superficial...eye shape, skin color, etc. There is more statistical variation between members of the same race 75-85% then there are between members of different races 5-15%, and if you break it down by "continental" groups instead of races, you get, not surprisingly, a similar 6-10 percent difference, which means that if you break down humans into any kind of large grouping, you will see those kinds of percentages.

And yes, change all to most or majority, and that's absolutely what he believes.

 

[GMM]

Re: and his point

I've never denied that. You keep trying to make what you think are good points when instead you're stating what nobody denies. Nice waste of time.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Re: and his point

Originally posted by GMM:
I've never denied that. You keep trying to make what you think are good points when instead you're stating what nobody denies. Nice waste of time.

What you have been arguing in all of these moronic posts of yours is that the genetic differences, whatever they may be, account at least in part for differences in economic status, social status, etc.

Which means that, if you acknowledge - as this particular post seems to do - that whatever genetic differences exist between races are primarily superficial or related to appearance, you are making an argument that not only is the socioeconomic status of individuals often determined by superficial differences, but that's a good thing.

But racism doesn't exist in your world...

 

[GMM]

Wow

I should expect crazy responses but sometimes I'm still amazed at what I get. This is one of better ones. And by "better" I mean "desperate".

Which means that, if you acknowledge - as this particular post seems to do - that whatever genetic differences exist between races are primarily superficial or related to appearance, you are making an argument that not only is the socioeconomic status of individuals often determined by superficial differences, but that's a good thing.

Um, no, I (and others) have been quite clear that its not superficial differences that explain socioeconomic differences. But, feel free to explain why West African blacks do better at sports because of their hair type or skin color. That oughta be good!

But racism doesn't exist in your world...

Wrong again. I've fully acknowledged that "racism" exists. The problem for you (and others) is that I know its a phony charge without any universal principles behind it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: intelligence

Originally posted by GMM:
You do realize that you are coming across as a supremacist in this thread, correct?

No, I don't realize that but I understand why some people would react that way.


......but there is absolutely, positively, no way you can actually believe that all white people are genetically coded to be smarter than all black people, because that's just absurd. Yet, it is what you've said, until you changed it to "some," at which point it became the most pointless discussion in the history of the GD board.

There you go again with that word "all". Find where I said that. If you do you'd find where you misinterpreted it. I, and others, are simply talking about differences in group characteristics. Not every single individual in a group compared to every single individual in another group.

Let's see how this statement should be interpreted if not other than racist:

"While you will acknowledge that individuals are genetically different you seem to believe in some Law of Nature that forces all characteristics to equal out from group to group... They're a useful example of what we face when it comes to doing away with Equality."

Merriam-Webster's definition of racist: "a belief that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

So, it's not a political correctness thing. It's just blatant, by the book, standard, accepted definition of racist. So you've got that going for you, which is nice.

And again I say: this is the dumbest conversation in the history of the GD board. "There are genetic differences between some members of different races." Well... duh. I mean, our eyes are different colors. Our skin is a different color. Our hair is different. Now, get this fact I just uncovered: there are also genetic differences between some members of the same race.

Mind.

Blown.

However, you seem to like this idea of race as a primary determinant of human traits and capacities as is written by the (racist) author you linked. So, you're either espousing racism (because you believe this idea holds merit), or this entire discussion is complete waste of time because it is completely self-evident (because you use the qualifying term "some").

Personally, I think it's some of both: you're a racist and are scared to admit it and instead hide behind cute name calling, winky faces, and "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist" jokes, and this is a waste of time.

You're such a coward in terms of your own feelings that you write off everyone who calls you a racist as "Marxist," "lefty," or some other cute label, when the reality is you've got people staunch on both sides of the "aisle" who see you for what you are: racist period.

 

[GMM]

Re: intelligence

You seem determined to twist my words around so you can call me a "racist" so you can feel better about yourself. I expected this, and I hope everyone reads this thread, so we can all understand the destructive power of Equality. Again, you insist that I say "race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities". No, I (and others) say that since genetics plays a role in human traits and capacities, and since genes vary from racial groups to racial group (which you acknowledge), then the results of life vary from racial group to racial group.

Naturally.

Which is the opposite of Equality.

For the record, I am not afraid of being labeled a "racist". It usually means you're doing the right thing. Since I understand how phony that term is it doesn't bother me.

 

[qazplm]

hey we found something good about GMM

he brings folks like you and me solidly on the same team. The "we aren't raging racists" team.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: intelligence

Originally posted by GMM:
You seem determined to twist my words around so you can call me a "racist" so you can feel better about yourself. I expected this, and I hope everyone reads this thread, so we can all understand the destructive power of Equality. Again, you insist that I say "race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities". No, I (and others) say that since genetics plays a role in human traits and capacities, and since genes vary from racial groups to racial group (which you acknowledge), then the results of life vary from racial group to racial group.

Naturally.

Which is the opposite of Equality.

For the record, I am not afraid of being labeled a "racist". It usually means you're doing the right thing. Since I understand how phony that term is it doesn't bother me.

It is amazing to me how you've deluded yourself into believing that you're not a racial supremacist, and that somehow even if you were, it's OK.

I do agree that genes vary from racial group to racial group, but I do not agree that it plays a role in traits and capacities as you assert, other than the superficial traits we've already discussed. That's where you become a racist, and I am not.

That you use that to defend the dismissal of "equality" is amazing. Have you considered that you are, in fact, arguing against a founding principle of this country whereby "All men are created equal?" If you so willingly accept that men are NOT in fact equal, then the Constitution itself becomes illegitimate.

But, in fact, you are a racist by the dictionary definition of the term, you just try to soften the blow by admitting that you're only "part racist" because you use the word "some." Good for you. You must be doing part of the right thing in your warped little mind.

How do you even justify that statement? How do you reconcile that you apparently can look at a man, judge his skin and appearance, determine that "he's Asian, so he's smart; he's black so he can jump high," and think that you're not at least moderately f'ed up in the head?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: hey we found something good about GMM

Originally posted by qazplm:
he brings folks like you and me solidly on the same team. The "we aren't raging racists" team.

Go team!

 

[GMM]

You've got it backwards

That you use that to defend the dismissal of "equality" is amazing. Have you considered that you are, in fact, arguing against a founding principle of this country whereby "All men are created equal?" If you so willingly accept that men are NOT in fact equal, then the Constitution itself becomes illegitimate.

You couldn't be more wrong. What the Declaration talks about is the fact that we are all born with equal rights. What the left demands is that we all* end up with equal outcomes, hence "Equality". The first leads to freedom while the second leads to tyranny.

How do you even justify that statement? How do you reconcile that you apparently can look at a man, judge his skin and appearance, determine that "he's Asian, so he's smart; he's black so he can jump high," and think that you're not at least moderately f'ed up in the head?

I don't. But apparently what you're admitting is that this is how your brain operates. Apparently you attribute group characteristics to every individual when its the collection of individuals that determines the characteristics of the group.

I do agree that genes vary from racial group to racial group, but I do not agree that it plays a role in traits and capacities as you assert.......

OK, you can believe this. You can believe that genes play a role in the traits and capacities of individuals but somehow not in the traits and capacities of groups of individuals.


*Well, those who are politically correct.

 

[qazplm]

yes

because created...doesn't REALLY mean, you know...created.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: You've got it backwards

Originally posted by GMM:
That you use that to defend the dismissal of "equality" is amazing. Have you considered that you are, in fact, arguing against a founding principle of this country whereby "All men are created equal?" If you so willingly accept that men are NOT in fact equal, then the Constitution itself becomes illegitimate.

You couldn't be more wrong. What the Declaration talks about is the fact that we are all born with equal rights. What the left demands is that we all* end up with equal outcomes, hence "Equality". The first leads to freedom while the second leads to tyranny.

How do you even justify that statement? How do you reconcile that you apparently can look at a man, judge his skin and appearance, determine that "he's Asian, so he's smart; he's black so he can jump high," and think that you're not at least moderately f'ed up in the head?

I don't. But apparently what you're admitting is that this is how your brain operates. Apparently you attribute group characteristics to every individual when its the collection of individuals that determines the characteristics of the group.

I do agree that genes vary from racial group to racial group, but I do not agree that it plays a role in traits and capacities as you assert.......

OK, you can believe this. You can believe that genes play a role in the traits and capacities of individuals but somehow not in the traits and capacities of groups of individuals.

You're just arguing yourself in circles here: you're calling me out for individuals but not groups of individuals, but you yourself have said that this doesn't apply to 'all'. You've expressly made that point on multiple occasions, so much so that I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing anymore.

Created equal means born equal, it does not mean equal outcome. That's expressly what it says. Thus, it implies that we're all born with equivalent capabilities and are all entitled to the same opportunity. Whether we choose to exploit those capabilities and opportunities is up to us (not our race). You seem to be saying otherwise; you seem to be saying that once your race is determined, so is your end state, thus we are not entitled to equal treatment because we're not equally capable. You're suggesting the exact opposite of what the country was founded on. Simple as that.

 

[GMM]

Very useful

Fascinating to see the reactions. Its to the point where you actually said "Thus, it implies that we're all born with equivalent capabilities". I'm certain you don't believe this. I'm certain you're aware of your own strengths/weaknesses compared to others. Further, that they are related to your genes.

...so much so that I'm not even sure you know what you're arguing anymore.

Yes, you are. But its too threatening so you have to distort or exaggerate, i.e. "you seem to be saying that once your race is determined, so is your end state". Groups have traits. They are measurable. They are related to genes. Genes vary from group to group. Races are groups. Group traits don't necessarily apply to ALL individuals within the group. Individual variation does not deny the existence of group traits.

I've tried this before so I'll try it again: men are taller than women. This is a group comparison. You acknowledge its true (if you don't you're hopeless). It does not mean there are no men shorter than women or no women taller than men. It simply means that a man is statistically likely to be taller than most women. This natural height difference is because of genes.

There are all kinds of comparisons you could make between racial groups. Some involving traits that are more important than others. Regardless, these differences exist and they are related to genes. But saying this is a threat to all holy and sacred Equality. It means that outcomes, even if all opportunities were the same and the playing field was completely level, would not be equal. People believe their own goodness is based on how much they support Equality. What I (and others) are saying threatens to take this away from people, i.e. take away their ability to be seen by others as a good person. People really, really, really don't want this. So, the reactions make sense.

Its very useful to see what lengths people will go to in order to defend orthodoxy. Fear can make people do some pretty silly things. Again, I know you don't believe that we're all born with equal capabilities.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: Very useful

I'm really not afraid of whatever it is you're arguing. I just think it's entertaining that you are OK with being a full-blown racist and fail to see anything wrong with anything you're espousing. Have a nice weekend. Or don't.

 

[db]

Re: As if you'd change your mind......

The existence of substantial estate taxes increases the role of ability, and decreases the role of luck, in determining the financial outcome for an individual.

Agree or disagree?

 

[atmafola]

GIman, your politics may not always align with mine but debating this GMM guy is a waste of time. Quazplm, give it up too. This GMM guy is genuinely lost and doesn't desire to be found. I just hope he is never in a position of authority that involves dealing with minorities being subordinate to him, I shudder to think how fair of shake those poor chaps will get under him.

 

[qazplm]

no u

in my screen-name.

And responding to him isn't about debating him, it's about making sure no one thinks we condone his racist crap on a purdue message board open to anyone to see.

 

[GMM]

Disagree

Having the government forcibly redistribute earned money does hardly anything for increasing the role of ability. Instead it increases the power of the government which does far more damage to ability than rich parents giving their kids an inheritance.

But here's your chance to support the Fair Tax! Those rich kids certainly spend money. So, if you're so interested in having the government get its grubby hands on rich people's money then you should support the Fair Tax.

Now, since you claim to be against luck, and since this thread discusses race, are you against racial entitlement programs?

 

[ecouch]

Re: no u

Further, it is important to note that GMM isn't a mere racist, but a supremacist. His language gives him away. The biggest example in this thread (I've seen him use it one other time) is his use of the term liberal creationists. This is a term coined by Steve Sailer, I believe, and only understood around certain circles. Human biodiversity, or HBD, is another. Racial realism is yet another.

 

[GMM]

Re: no u

Did Steve Sailer coin the term? Don't know and don't care but it certainly is an apt term. He's a good blogger with a unique perspective. You should read him on a regular basis. Then, you can come back here and tell us all the hateful, nasty things he says.

Further, it is important to note that GMM isn't a mere racist, but a supremacist.

Yes, important to note if you're a conformist scold. Exactly what kind of "supremacy" are you talking about? The supremacy of accuracy, right? Most of the reactions have been just name-calling. Rarely is the accuracy of anything discussed. Certainly not the twisted logic that people like you have to defend. No, just denunciations of the heretic. Its not like I didn't expect this.

Sailer links to an article in the Toronto Globe & Mail that discusses Wade's book. The last paragraph sums up your (and others') reaction:

Even so, you can be sure that quite a lot of people do not want to have this conversation, or even admit that it might be legitimate. They do not want to entertain the thought that genetics could be a reason why human societies differ. Sure, they believe in evolution - except when it comes to us.

Hence, the term "Liberal Creationist".



This post was edited on 5/11 8:58 AM by GMM

 

[db]

Re: Disagree

I'm in favor of a flat wealth tax, like 1% per year, on everyone, with no income tax on anyone. Is that fair enough for you?

Your argument on the estate tax holds absolutely no water, and frankly I'm a little disappointed in you because you seemed like someone who was an independent thinker and not an adherent of party orthodoxy. Yet here you use the tired language of anti-gubmint extremists instead of trying to make any rational point.

Humans have proven time and again that if you allow a few families to accumulate most of the wealth, then a broad spectrum of people who have a broad spectrum of the "abilities" you so cherish (as well as work ethic which you seem to emphasize less) will end up with crumbs.

We will discuss racial entitlement programs in due time...don't want to hijack this thread for that.