 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
No, it doesn't, because people are not bred. |
It makes no difference whether they are or not. Using dogs as an example, I have shown that genetic similarity does not necessarily equal actual similarity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Nevertheless, you said "The average genetic variation between individuals of the same race is LARGER than the genetic variation between the "average" individuals of different races." as if it proved that races do not exist. If you agree with me that genetic similarity does not necessarily equal actual similarity, why would you use genetic variation as an example of how similar humans are?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
To prove that they don't have any GENETIC meaning. |
You can't draw the conclusion that race does not have genetic meaning simply by observing that the genetic variation is larger within races than between them. All this shows is that the varying genes between races are more important than the varying genes within races. That's also why I brought up the dog example - to show that you only need very small genetic differences (as long as they are important genes) to produce huge actual differences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
Just tired of all you race-sensative yahoos trying to prove that your not racist, or at least prejudice..
This topic will come up again all to soon...
What about PA? If you think you beat us, then you must think you beat him...
---
I, nor Cali, never said ALL BLACK people. Generalizations and Characterizations are key to the fabric of policy, ever hear of a poll? |
Uh, when you say "black people run faster", you don't mean "some black people run faster".
You are making a statement about all black people.
A generalization based on race is racism.
A fact is a fact. A poll is a poll. It has a specific question, a selection set, and an error margin. I don't see anyone talking about polls here.
If you deal in generalizations, that is racism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
There's a big difference between a generalization and a blanket statement.
It seems plain to me that Japher meant it to be taken as a generalization.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
OK, this thread really really really annoys me.
There are two types of people here. The majority are people who are obsessed with showing how w00tacularly un-racist they are, even if they have to resort to complete logical fallacies and incredibly stupid rhetorical questions to do so. "Why isn't race defined by eye color?" 
Then there are the people who are even more oddly obsessed with "proving" differences between races even though they come off looking like *******s every time. |
That's because they're the ones who care about the issue strongly. IMHO, there are general differences between ethnic groups. The mens 100 metres hurdles final at this years Olympics will almost certainly be made up entirely of black men. Generally, they find it easier to build muscle, and have more 'fast twitch' muscles, and so the very pinacle of sprinting is dominated by black men.
Racism, IMHO, is saying that people should be treated differently, based on their race. It wouldn't be sexist to admit that men are faster runners, or taller, by and large, then women. It wouldn't be sexist to have a height requirement on a job where it's needed, such as a firefighters. However it would be sexist to say that women should be excluded from being firefighters, purely because they're women, when some women are tall enough to meet the height requirement. I would see racism in the same way. Admitting differences is not racism, at least it's not discrimination, although I feel little need to prove to the world that differences exist, especially for purposes of descrimination.
Last edited by Drogue on 06-04-2004 at 21:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
That's because they're the ones who care about the issue strongly. IMHO, there are general differences between ethnic groups. The mens 100 metres hurdles final at this years Olympics will almost certainly be made up entirely of black men. Generally, they find it easier to build muscle, and have more 'fast twitch' muscles, and so the very pinacle of sprinting is dominated by black men.
|
Statistically you are probably correct. What you could have equally said that is that all racers will be human, but that would of course be facetitious and uninformative, or that all runners will be from a particular subset of black people, which then implies that not all subsets of black people have the talented sprinter gene. Which is true, for I doubt there will be any Ethiopans in the final. Its far more likely that they'll be appearing in the marathon competitions, which too will probably be dominated by black people, but a different kind of black person to the 100m sprint - when was the last time you saw black African American men competing for a marathon title?
An analogy- if all persons in the 100m final were likely to be white Germans from Bavaria- would you say the final will likely be an all white final due to reason X, Y, Z, or an all European, or an all German or all Bavarian final? It doesn't matter too much which you choose until inferences are drawn by people on the terms you are using.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Racism, IMHO, is saying that people should be treated differently, based on their race. It wouldn't be sexist to admit that men are faster runners, or taller, by and large, then women. It wouldn't be sexist to have a heigh requirement on a job where it's needed, such as a firefighters. However it would be sexist to say that women should be excluded from being firefighters, purely because they're women, when some women are tall enough to meet the height requirement. I would see racism in the same way. Admitting differences is not racism, at least it's not discrimination, although I feel little need to prove to the world that differences exist, especially for purposes of descrimination. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
Statistically you are probably correct. What you could have equally said that is that all racers will be human, but that would of course be facetitious and uninformative, or that all runners will be from a particular subset of black people, which then implies that not all subsets of black people have the talented sprinter gene. Which is true, for I doubt there will be any Ethiopans in the final. Its far more likely that they'll be appearing in the marathon competitions, which too will probably be dominated by black people, but a different kind of black person to the 100m sprint - when was the last time you saw black African American men competing for a marathon title? |
Very true, it is not because of skin colour, but genetic origin. The amount of fast twitch muscles is genetic, as seems to be the efficient muscles and lung capacity of East African long distance runners. That is not to belittledthe effort they put in at all, which is considerable, but someone like myself, however hard I trained, would be unable to compete with them. I simply don't have the genetics.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
An analogy- if all persons in the 100m final were likely to be white Germans from Bavaria- would you say the final will likely be an all white final due to reason X, Y, Z, or an all European, or an all German or all Bavarian final? It doesn't matter too much which you choose until inferences are drawn by people on the terms you are using. |
All very true. It would be about their genetics, which also decides your skin colour. Somatype, muscle type, etc, is all genetic, and so while skin colour does not cause it, the same thing that causes skin colour causes the potential for a certain type of athletic performance. Therefore, in your analogy, it is not because they are white that they can run fast, it is because of their common genetic origin. However it wouldn't be down to nationality or place of birth at all, since neither of those are genetic traits. The only way you can get all members of the final to be from one relatively small geographic area, is inbreeding, as in the Kenyan villiage that produces so many Kenyan long distance runners, and keeping the genes for thier particularly efficient/fast muscles in that geographic area.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Park Avenue
|
 |
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Racism, IMHO, is saying that people should be treated differently, based on their race. It wouldn't be sexist to admit that men are faster runners, or taller, by and large, then women. It wouldn't be sexist to have a heigh requirement on a job where it's needed, such as a firefighters. However it would be sexist to say that women should be excluded from being firefighters, purely because they're women, when some women are tall enough to meet the height requirement. I would see racism in the same way. Admitting differences is not racism, at least it's not discrimination, although I feel little need to prove to the world that differences exist, especially for purposes of descrimination. |
So you'd agree that "positive discrimination" is racism in action?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
|
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Very true, it is not because of skin colour, but genetic origin. The amount of fast twitch muscles is genetic, as seems to be the efficient muscles and lung capacity of East African long distance runners. That is not to belittledthe effort they put in at all, which is considerable, but someone like myself, however hard I trained, would be unable to compete with them. I simply don't have the genetics.
All very true. It would be about their genetics, which also decides your skin colour. Somatype, muscle type, etc, is all genetic, and so while skin colour does not cause it, the same thing that causes skin colour causes the potential for a certain type of athletic performance. Therefore, in your analogy, it is not because they are white that they can run fast, it is because of their common genetic origin. However it wouldn't be down to nationality or place of birth at all, since neither of those are genetic traits. The only way you can get all members of the final to be from one relatively small geographic area, is inbreeding, as in the Kenyan villiage that produces so many Kenyan long distance runners, and keeping the genes for thier particularly efficient/fast muscles in that geographic area. |
But based on your generalization, you would have to agree that pygmies are more likely to run faster and jump higher than germans.
And THAT is why it is racism.
It is a lie.
You look at a non-random subset of people, and choose to associate a trait you SELECTED those people for with another obvious trait they happen to have.
Then you ASSUME that all people who have the obvious trait (black skin) also have the selected trait (good sprinting).
It is a lie.
It can only lead to differing expecatations, which can only lead to different treatment.
Stop before you start.
Once you assume that "black people" are a homogenous group with innate physiological differences, it is too easy to decide they have innate behaviours as well.
(Can't control themselves, poor dears. Don't have the tools. Not their fault they commit crime, its because they can't keep up. Look, their marks are lower, numbers don't lie.)
  
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-04-2004 20:44
|