 |
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Look at true colour, and tell me whether you can demarcate between Red and Orange, at their closest shades?
There really are no 'colours', just different shades. |
Jep, In a physical Sense there are no Colours, just different wavelengths.
Itīs because of the processing by our visual System that we perceive them as different Colors (as there are 3 different kinds of Cones each which his preferred Range of Wavelengths and within the visual pathway the inputs from the cones inhibit the Inputs from the other Cones (i.e. Red inhibits Green, Blue inhibits Yellow and vice versa [there are btw. only Red, Green and Blue Cones, Yellow is already a Result of Visual Processing])
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
Racism is a Problem of Education.
AFAIK you wouldnīt see small children making a Distinction between Skin Colour.
Itīs only later in Life that conscious or subconscious aversions against other Races develop. Be it because the Parents have such aversions or be it because the children observe other people in their vicinity having those aversions.
So, yes, I also think that, if you change society you could eleminate Racism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
people are inherently very similar, and the only fair thing is to treat them all the same. |
Azazel, there are certainly many ways in which one human being will necessarily be similar to the next. But taking that sort of starting point and using it as a basis to decide in advance how you will treat people is precisely the thing which is called prejudice. By latching on to the general idea "people are similar" you judge how to behave in advance, you let yourself off weighing the actual situation affecting you and some actual person.
And it turns out, when you do not use a generalisation to pre-judge how you will deal with people, that in fact the generalisation would work fine for you much of the time but it would lead you astray sometimes. That is the nature of mere generalisation.
In your case you would be led astray by your prejudice whenever it turned out that the particular person did not fit the pattern which the similarities you have observed have led you to expect.
Your conclusion also does not work. If you look about you will notice very many situations in which treating people in the same way is great for one but lousy for another. To take a trivial illustration, steps up to a front door are fine for those with legs, not so great for those without.
So the wisdom which we have been trying to build up is not quite to aim to treat everyone the same. Rather that wisdom suggests that everyone should be afforded equality of opportunity.
Achieving which often involves treating people very differently.
And always on the basis of their actual characteristics, not on some preconceived notion.
Sorry that the tone of that is a bit didactic. Old geezers often get that way - this one has, anyway. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
We've been over this before, Az. You can't possibly build a society based on universal principles because they always will be someone's universal principles - the "individual" is the white, male, middle-class individual, the "collective" is the one which conforms to one standard that some groups have an unfair competetive advantage to achieve. If you want any semblance of equality you're going to have to accept differences and try to even them out by redistributing power between the groups.
|
we've been over this before, indeed. 
The fact that the principles were invented by white males doesn't mean that they're wrong, or are only in the interest of the white males. one certainly can claim them to be superior to the principles invented by brown males, white females, purple hermaphrodites, etc. The correctness of such arguement is to be decide through a honest debate. When we've established who's correct, we must follow these principles, and while these principles should always under scrutiny, and repeatedly checked in strengh against other such principles in more debates, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow them.
"conformity" is a non-issue. after all, we ARE all born pretty much the same ( I hope you don't disagree with that), and in the process of growing up, can fit into those shoes.
Those groups you talk about shouldn't get respect for their arguments only because they exist. They should get respect if, and only if they measure up in an honest debate. and if they win, through an honest debate, and not propoganda, majoritarianism, or anything else, then they're right.
EST:
quote:
Azazel, there are certainly many ways in which one human being will necessarily be similar to the next. But taking that sort of starting point and using it as a basis to decide in advance how you will treat people is precisely the thing which is called prejudice. By latching on to the general idea "people are similar" you judge how to behave in advance, you let yourself off weighing the actual situation affecting you and some actual person.
|
You've misunderstood my point. I never said that people in general are the same, or very similar. many similarities exist, yes, but they're quite different, actually. I said that they are born similar, the biggest difference being men, and women, and that ain't that big, in itself.
quote:
And it turns out, when you do not use a generalisation to pre-judge how you will deal with people, that in fact the generalisation would work fine for you much of the time but it would lead you astray sometimes. That is the nature of mere generalisation.
|
You've misunderstood my first point, and then inadvertedly attacked a strawman. I never said that one must use generalisation to pre-judge how you deal with people. IMO, future generations, if treated equally from day 1, will grow up to be people that are similar . Some might say that this is an evil plan to create an army of thinkalike zombies, but that's obviously not true. similar doesn't mean the same, equal doesn't mean the same, either. People, through their life expriences, will be shaped differently. You can't avoid that. What I ask is that they won't meet categorizations along the way.
quote:
In your case you would be led astray by your prejudice whenever it turned out that the particular person did not fit the pattern which the similarities you have observed have led you to expect.
|
quote:
Your conclusion also does not work. If you look about you will notice very many situations in which treating people in the same way is great for one but lousy for another. To take a trivial illustration, steps up to a front door are fine for those with legs, not so great for those without.
|
duh. see first point.
quote:
So the wisdom which we have been trying to build up is not quite to aim to treat everyone the same. Rather that wisdom suggests that everyone should be afforded equality of opportunity.
Achieving which often involves treating people very differently.
|
Not if you stick to treating people equally from beginning to end.
quote:
And always on the basis of their actual characteristics, not on some preconceived notion.
|
again, see first point.
quote:
Sorry that the tone of that is a bit didactic. Old geezers often get that way - this one has, anyway. |
What, are you kidding? I live for this stuff! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is true that there are statistical differences between different populations, using many different criterion.
you could use certain of these criterion for defining race.
For example it is true than the average skin colour in SA is different than in N America than in Africa etc...
This is obvious.
The more interesting point is that, has as been pointed out, it is a continuum sprectrum for almost all these criterion. There are much darker ppl in American than in Africa, there would be no obvious cut-line, and this property has been found for all studied criterion.
That doesn't mean its impossible to define races objectively, it is (i mean here that we can find a definitoin, THAT ONCE AGREE UPON, we can classify ppl) the problem is the choice of definition is somewhat to very subjective.
the most interesting point, is that it has been proved, that for most er.. intuitive definition of races (skin colour etc) the variance between the mean subjects in between races is less than the variance in beetween subjects in a race.
Which means that for example, for a specific trait, it will usually be more different between 2 different Irish (howere you want it defined) than beetween the average Irish and the Average Tuti.
Maybe if you find "L'eloge de la difference" by renowed biologist/ethician in English you could find great arguments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LulThyme
It is true that there are statistical differences between different populations, using many different criterion.
you could use certain of these criterion for defining race.
For example it is true than the average skin colour in SA is different than in N America than in Africa etc...
This is obvious.
The more interesting point is that, has as been pointed out, it is a continuum sprectrum for almost all these criterion. There are much darker ppl in American than in Africa, there would be no obvious cut-line, and this property has been found for all studied criterion.
That doesn't mean its impossible to define races objectively, it is (i mean here that we can find a definitoin, THAT ONCE AGREE UPON, we can classify ppl) the problem is the choice of definition is somewhat to very subjective.
the most interesting point, is that it has been proved, that for most er.. intuitive definition of races (skin colour etc) the variance between the mean subjects in between races is less than the variance in beetween subjects in a race.
Which means that for example, for a specific trait, it will usually be more different between 2 different Irish (howere you want it defined) than beetween the average Irish and the Average Tuti.
Maybe if you find "L'eloge de la difference" by renowed biologist/ethician in English you could find great arguments. |
Yes, it seems to be logical to define Race among statistical Analysis of Difference bettween the Groups, for example via ANOVA and to define 2 Groups of Humans as being of different Races if there are statistically significant Differences (with p <= .05) between the groups (but not within each Group)
You mention some Examinations made according to this Criterion, LulThyme.
Are there any papers which are freely available on the Iternet?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Scientists generally agree that "race" is not an objectively valid term. Genetic differences between "races" are less than genetic differences within "races." "Race" exists only as a subjective concept on which different people do not agree. The classic white/black/yellow differentiation is drastically inadequate. Hispanics and Asian Indians and American Indians are all hard to categorize within that simplistic system.
We can try all we want to define "races," but we will always produce a system inadequate to classify everyone, or even nearly everyone. If we can't use the categorization system to categorize people, what's it good for? Let's do away with the concept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Catagorizing groups of people and noting their common traits is fine as long as you treat people as individuals on a one-to-one basis.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2004 16:06
@argument!
|