 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Why shouldn't I put it after his quote. It was a direct response to his assertion.
As for putting some sort of disclaimer, I assume people who I'm arguing with follow the discussion. Sometimes they don't, but I can't be arsed to make sure everyone does (hell, sometimes, I don't follow it). It seems rather self-righteous of you to criticize me on this point.  |
Maybe we should ask the guys opinion too about this.
Self-righteous? I think you did a wrong I try to avoid. Not just that, you totally denied/deny doing it, which in my eyes is much worse.
quote:
Come again?  |
I was just playing with the possibility that it at first hand seemed to you that it was his opinion, and later reveleaded to not be, which would make it less bad. It was even off topic of our off topic topic.
I think I should get some sleep finally, it's 10 am 
Edit: oops, not your but our.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Maybe we should ask the guys opinion too about this. |
I really doubt he gives a ****. This is absurd pedantry.
quote:
I was just playing with the possibility that it at first hand seemed to you that it was his opinion, and later reveleaded to not be, which would make it less bad. It was even off topic of our off topic topic. |
No.... he made it clear it was not his opinion in the beginning, and that he was exploring the possibility. I know that.
quote:
I think you did a wrong I try to avoid. Not just that, you totally denied/deny doing it, which in my eyes is much worse. |
What wrong did I do, exactly? I never said he thinks blacks are more violent than whites, and that's quite clear to anyone who's following the discussion (which, I admit might be challenging given its length and tangeants). I thought I've explained that already.
I've answered your accusation totally and completely, and you haven't bothered backed it up. It's really starting to bore me. Later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
He's a racist, and any pretense of "what if" is bullshit.
|
This amounts to nothing more than name-calling. This is typical of the believers in racial equality.
If both sides are totally honest they will admit that science has not proven whether races are equal or not. Ranskaldan makes a good comparison between the "anti-racists" and fundimentalists.
Although nothing has been proven scientifically, the anti-racists claim moral superiority, and accuse anyone with a different viewpoint on the subject of being motivated by hate or paranoia.
quote:
Originally posted by ranskaldan
All in all I would agree that racism is wrong. But I don't think it's wrong because there are NO differences among races / spectrum locations / whatever. I think it's wrong because no human deserves to be pigeonholed before they have a chance to show their individual self. |
I agree completely. To me, racism is judging someone by their race alone. This is something I try never to do. Yet because I don't believe that different races are equal, I am branded a racist. How silly!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
No it's not. It's a misleading conclusion based on a fraction of the information needed to understand the entire situation. |
What if you said that those caught being involved with fraud were more likely to be white males than any other race?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
What's the difference between linking crime to race and linking it to drugs? Drug use is a societal problem not a genetic one. |
Possibly, but is it evil to even consider the possibility of a genetic contributor?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeH
it's racist mainly because logically it makes no sense that race would have an affect on how likely you are to be a criminal. That would assume some absolute preprogrammed set of morals in each person and that the colour of your skin had some kind of an influence over what those were. It's not instinctive behaviour like pulling your hand away from a fire if it's too hot or blinking in bright light. |
In western society, murder is a criminal act. Wouldnt having a higher level of testosterone make murder or violence more likely? There may also be other genetic factors in play that make someone more prone to violence.
We could debate all day whether different racial groups are more prone to violence or not, but all in all, there is no absolute proof either way. There is scientific evidence that supports both sides, so do you think I am evil and full of hate simply because I choose to believe the opposite side to you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
I might be willfully ignorant were there evidence to support your position. But I've refuted your absurd claims every single time you brought them up. |
Not really, you just came up with evidence to support your own position. If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to admit that there is valid evidence to support both sides. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people, who have looked more deeply into the science of this than I, who believe that different races are likely to have genetic differences that are more than skin deep.
You seem to think its "racist" (evil) to seek to know the truth of this matter. To me that sounds like the kind of position a christian fundimentalist would take if they knew of efforts to disprove something the Bible says (its EVIL!).
quote:
I never said you did |
Well that is part of what "racism" means to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
There are plenty of extremely intelligent people, who have looked more deeply into the science of this than I, who believe that different races are likely to have genetic differences that are more than skin deep. |
I don't dispute that there are differences more than skin deep (i.e. disease resistances, and whatnot). I dispute that these differences amount to intelligence or agressiveness disparities. And even if "smart people" believe that, smart people can believe a lot of absurd things (for instance, I'm sure Heisenberg believed Nazi propaganda about the untermensch to at least some extent), and there's absolutely no rational basis for that belief.
quote:
You seem to think its "racist" (evil) to seek to know the truth of this matter. |
Umm.. no. I think it's wrong to spout racist viewpoints regardless of whether they're true or not. It's overwhelmingly likely that I have no problem with the "truth."
And racism is not the same thing as evil. Racist beliefs are what you favor. Which I consider morally wrong.
quote:
Not really, you just came up with evidence to support your own position. |
But I've never heard any evidence refuting my counter-arguments. That's the way debates work. Whenever I propose counter-arguments, y'all never address them. Just as if I were countering Creationist claims.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Umm.. no. I think it's wrong to spout racist viewpoints regardless of whether they're true or not. It's overwhelmingly likely that I have no problem with the "truth." |
It seems to me that the only "truth" you will accept is one that supports your beliefs. Even if confronted with absoute proof, you would not change your mind.
quote:
And racism is not the same thing as evil. Racist beliefs are what you favor. Which I consider morally wrong. |
How is it morally wrong to seek to know the truth? So far I am more convinced by the arguments presented by the "racists", but I would not refuse to accept absolute proof that they were wrong. You, on the other hand, have an almost religious conviction that you are right.
quote:
But I've never heard any evidence refuting my counter-arguments. That's the way debates work. Whenever I propose counter-arguments, y'all never address them. Just as if I were countering Creationist claims. |
I, and others, have countered your arguments, but why should we continue when its clear that your mind is made up. Its fine that you have your own beliefs on this matter, we all have our own opinions, but you seem to think that you have the moral high ground when this is a purely scientific matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
It seems to me that the only "truth" you will accept is one that supports your beliefs. Even if confronted with absoute proof, you would not change your mind. |
Not at all. I wouldn't reject anything if I had adequate proof it is true. All I'm saying is that I'd rather not know if your racist claims are true since I don't want unconscious biases on people because of their skin color.
quote:
How is it morally wrong to seek to know the truth? |
It isn't wrong to seek to truth. It's wrong to assert a racist claim, particularly when it has absolutely no evidence is going for it.
It's wrong to spread racist claims, even if they are true, as it would certainly lead to the oppression of those you deem inferior (and don't give me that bullshit about how you think no race is better than another, only different races have various strengths and weaknesses).
Honestly, tell my why you are so obsessed with proving this point? What is the point your little crusade? Since there's no concievable way this information could benefit society, what motivates you?
BTW, the last thing you are doing is "seeking the truth."
quote:
So far I am more convinced by the arguments presented by the "racists", but I would not refuse to accept absolute proof that they were wrong. You, on the other hand, have an almost religious conviction that you are right. |
Not at all. Science supports my position (read my argument regarding selection pressures again), while you have absolutely nothing supporting your argument besides statistics with dubious samples and controls (i.e. the argument you brought up in your first post).
As for the claim regarding absolute proof, you have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:
I, and others, have countered your arguments, |
 In your dreams. You've abandoned every single one of your racist propaganda threads after I and other anti-racists have countered your arguments.
quote:
but why should we continue when its clear that your mind is made up. |
On the contrary, it's clear your mind is made up with your obsession with proving the inferiority of blacks in terms of intelligence and so forth when you have nothing to back your claims.
Also, my mind is not made up. My mind is not made up on anything.
And if you are too chickenshit to argue your points, why do you bother posting your racist bull in this forum?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Yeah the debate sorta puttered out a few pages ago. The last real good post I remember is this one yet not much in the way of a response except to complain about his assertion that the case was closed.
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This shows your non-understanding of the Theory of Evolution. The ToE merely says that animals will adapt to their environment. In this case, dark-skinned, curly haired humans did not fair as well in northern climes. Their children who were lighter skinned were able to make more Vitimin D with their skin and retain more heat in the long Northern winters than their dark children. Eventually, light-skinned decendents out-competed dark-skinned inhabitants. What other traits would be selected against moving to the north?
Another major problem that the biological racists have, though they never acknowledge it is, their argument is limited by time. The first civilizations weren't white. In fact, Indo-Europeans were barbarian nomads who invaded and conquered the civlizations of browner peoples. If we are inherently smarter, why didn't we create our own civilizations until nearly 4,000 years after others?
For a thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese, and Africans who were the standard bearers of civiliation while most our ancestors were hide-robed barbarians who were afraid of bathes and couldn't write. For most of civilized history, the Chinese were the leaders of civilization, and they probably will be again in a hundred years or so.
In the 19th Century, violent crime was far more likely to be committed in the US by white men against everyone. Black people didn't account for a majority of violent crimes until fairly recently in American history, probably the 1950s and later when the majority of Black people began living in cities.
So, can we make a deterimination that Black people are biologically more likely to committ a violent crime based on 50 years out of 8,000? Seems kind, well, f*cking stupid if you ask me.
Case closed! |
I would prefer not to have further investigation in this subject for the very sensible reason that I don't want my race proven inferior, and I'm white. I guess other posters on this thread are just certain about the conclusions. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
I'm going to offend everyone here, but:
Cali: your entire point, you realize, lacks evidence. Seriously, it doesn't have any evidence for it.
Ramo: your entire point is based on absolute denial and self contradiction. No evidence - fine. But your point is built on the idea that EVEN IF there is evidence, you are going to close your eyes to it. Hence you are, in fact, opposed to the very idea of truth.
Tell me, what if it's proven tomorrow somehow that whites are 6% more likely to have a certain violent gene than blacks? Well you're going to tell that that this isn't true. But WHAT IF? Are you going to simply deny it, and advocate the stopping of all research into the area? If you do, I have no problem with your moral choice - but you are no longer defending truth.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-11-2002 12:51
)
|