12-11-2002 03:26									#211
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Caligastia 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.

This is what I find curious. The arguments of the racists have been demolished, refuted, and repudiated by 90% of the scientific community. Those who claim to support these arguments are generally not accredited scientists and often have links to white supremacy groups, which severely taints any notions of objectivity on their part.

The biggest disproof of their claims, of course, is the ignoring of history, to which I pointed. If whites were more intelligent, why is it that we've only been in charge of civilization for a minority of civilized history? Why is it we lost that supremacy for a thousand years to supposedly "less intelligent" peoples? Why was the majority of violence directed by whites against Blacks for most of American history if Black people are more prone to violence?

	12-11-2002 03:27									#212
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well a 6% more chance would not be statistically relevant for a study but how would any truth be gained from a study like this anyway. It would be surrounded by such a firestorm of debate, hmmm who sponsored the study, lets look into the scientists lives and discredit them, give me a break. Does anyone see a possible scenario where any TRUTH is gained from studies of this sort? The reasons aren't only moral. Its pure insanity to think any relevant conclusions can be made and debated in an objective atmosphere. This thread is the prime example!

	12-11-2002 03:29									#213
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

No, I wouldn't.

quote: 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.

1. Such research serves absolutely no point, except to incite hatred, so yes I wouldn't support it now or ever.

2. No, I would not deny it. I was simply pointing that I would rather not know since I don't want any unconscious biases based on skin color. I can't very well prevent myself from knowing if I see valid evidence for it.

	12-11-2002 03:31									#214
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

And gs certainly brings up a good point. But if the difference were bigger, the answer is the same.

	12-11-2002 03:32									#215
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

One of the more interesting points around The Bell Curve was that the "scientists" who claimed to make new points in their book mostly said that everyone was trying to shut them down without discussing the points. When scientists were called upon to discuss the book, they were always attacked with, "Why are you trying to stop this book?" even when they were trying to discuss the points and problems with the book's methodology and conclusions. In other words, the discussion was shut down not by those opposed to the book, but by the authors themselves, who were able to create a storm of controverse and gain sympathy over something that wasn't happening and at the same time quashed any refuting of their work. Machievelian brilliance to be sure, but that won't fly here.

	12-11-2002 03:37									#216
	Tired of ads?

Yep, some of the studies in The Bell Curve were quite amusing. My favorite was where the "scientists" referenced determined that blacks are less intelligent than whites by taking the majority of their statistics from South Africa.

	12-11-2002 03:41									#217
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

che, about every point made by you on this page (including quoted) are exactly the same thing what Cali did with the "blacks are more violent example" at the beginning of this thread. _If_ calis example seems irrational to you, I think your own points should too. Too many variables in every example, impossible to pick one variable among them and try to define it. Just like Calis claim.
P.s your last post is not one of those I meant.

	12-11-2002 03:47									#218
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You all do know that Arabs and Indians (east) are technically Caucasians don't you?

	12-11-2002 03:52									#219
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove You all do know that Arabs and Indians (east) are technically Caucasians don't you?

I don't know anything, before I entered into this thread I was certain there are even different races!

	12-11-2002 03:58									#220
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: che, about every point made by you on this page (including quoted) are exactly the same thing what Cali did with the "blacks are more violent example" at the beginning of this thread. _If_ calis example seems irrational to you, I think your own points should too. Too many variables in every example, impossible to pick one variable among them and try to define it. Just like Calis claim. P.s your last post is not one of those I meant.

che is refuting anecdotal evidence with other anecdotal evidence to show how rediculous Cali's assertion is. It's much more relevant than what Cali posted.

quote: You all do know that Arabs and Indians (east) are technically Caucasians don't you?

Actually, Arabs are Semites, not Indo-Europeans (turning language groups into "racial" categories is incredibly tenuous BTW). And some Indians, for instance Dravidians, aren't Indo-Europeans either.

	12-11-2002 03:59									#221
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Wouldn't it suck if you were Indian to only technically be part of your race?

	12-11-2002 04:01									#222
	Got spare money?

I'm a caucasian Indian.

	12-11-2002 04:03									#223
	Put an end to popups!

I feel for you man.

	12-11-2002 04:10									#224
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

You think I have it rough? What about Iranians, who are also caucasian? Or Jews and Arabs, who are the same race?

	12-11-2002 04:12									#225
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by tinyp3nis che, about every point made by you on this page (including quoted) are exactly the same thing what Cali did with the "blacks are more violent example" at the beginning of this thread.

And yet you miss the point that was clearly spelled out, don't you? If Black people are genetically more violent than whites, why isn't this borne out historically? Because no race is genetically superior to another nor is any race more "specialized" in some trait or another. The balance of power, civilization, and violence has shifted back and forth from one "race" to another throughout history. If we were genetically superior, we would always have been on top.

Dr. S., shhhhh!

It's true, they are Caucausian, but they aren't white, at least by some people's definition. Hell, Arabs aren't even a phenotype group, but simply a people linked by language. This is part of my point about the mutable concept of race. By one definition, they are all members of the same race. By other definitions, they are all different races. How can we make determinations on the supposed abilities of one group or antoher when we can't even agree that the groups exist.

	12-11-2002 04:12									#226
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: che is refuting anecdotal evidence with other anecdotal evidence

Yes and

quote: to show how rediculous Cali's assertion is.

this would be convinient situation for him, wouldn't it?

Btw I almost included this in my last post:
"I guess it's somewhat reasonable if you strongly believe cali is racist and you are trying to convert him"
But I doubt/ed that was the motive.

quote: It's much more relevant than what Cali posted.

How?

	12-11-2002 04:14									#227
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Actually, Arabs are Semites, not Indo-Europeans (turning language groups into "racial" categories is incredibly tenuous BTW). And some Indians, for instance Dravidians, aren't Indo-Europeans either.

IndoEuropean is a linguistic group, not a racial group. Semites are also Caucasians, as are Dravidians. So are we one race or three?

	12-11-2002 04:14									#228
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I didn't distress this enough I guess:

quote: _If_ calis example seems irrational to you, I think your own points should too.

	12-11-2002 04:18									#229
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You are going to have to be far more specific, because you aren't making a damn bit of sense.

	12-11-2002 04:19									#230
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Well the "Don't you?" part made reply

quote: And yet you miss the point that was clearly spelled out, don't you? If Black people are genetically more violent than whites, why isn't this borne out historically? Because no race is genetically superior to another nor is any race more "specialized" in some trait or another. The balance of power, civilization, and violence has shifted back and forth from one "race" to another throughout history. If we were genetically superior, we would always have been on top.

No, I did not, thank you.

	12-11-2002 04:21									#231
	Got spare money?

quote: IndoEuropean is a linguistic group, not a racial group. Semites are also Caucasians, as are Dravidians. So are we one race or three?

Hmmm... I usually hear "racial" categories split between linguistic groups. It's all bullshit, of course.

quote: How?

To show Cali that if the original assertion holds water, so does his...

	12-11-2002 04:25									#232
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by tinyp3nis No, I did not, thank you.

Explain it then.

	12-11-2002 04:29									#233
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You are going to have to be far more specific, because you aren't making a damn bit of sense.

It was all about too many variables. I think that is simple... How to make this more clear? Hmmm his example of blacks being more violent was not very clever because there were other issues involved than genes, and it's nearly(word included to avoid critisism) impossible to single out genes and how they are involved, right? The examples made by you were similar. Can you see how? Can you see the other things involved i.e in the history and peak points of cultures other than genes or any other single reason why something happened at certain point? The reasons can't be singled out.

	12-11-2002 06:07									#234
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

This thread is getting a bit off-track. If you look at my original post, I am asking why people get so offended by the mere suggestion of a link between crime and race. I'm not so concerned (right now) with whether there is a link or not, I just want to know why the suggestion is offensive.

The reason I am asking is because, despite what some here are claiming, there is no evidence that all races are equal. So why is this suggestion so offensive?

Personally I think the reason so many are offended is because they can't separate the idea of unequal races from hatred and bigotry.

This topic is so fascinating for me because its so emotional for so many. The attitude I get truly amazes me. Its really tough to have a calm discussion of this topic.

	12-11-2002 10:59									#235
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by tinyp3nis Can you see the other things involved i.e in the history and peak points of cultures other than genes or any other single reason why something happened at certain point? The reasons can't be singled out.

I am not positing that genes have anything to do with my exmples. I am positing the opposite, they have almost nothing to do with it. Over time, the superior genes should have shown themselves by making one race or the other dominent more often than another. Since that didn't happen, we are left to conclude that none of the "races" of humanity are superior to one another.

So far, what we have is, "well, there are visual variations among the 'races,' so there may or must be differences in other areas as well." The problem is, if those differences exist, why haven't they yet been detected? Disease resistance is the only unseen difference that scientists can show at this point. Changes only spread through a population when the lack of that mutation causes individuals to be less able to pass on their genes.

You have to explain why the environment in which white people evolved necessarily made us more intelligent than Africans. Why would people of average intelligence be unable to survive the Central Asian steppes? Certainly, it's a harsh environment, but no more so than many other parts of the world. What is special about that area that it required even greater intelligence to survive than say, the SouthWestern US?

Then, you need to explain why these supposedly superior peoples took so much longer to develop civilization (and couldn't hold onto it when they conquered it).

Caligastia, the suggestion is offensive because at the core of the main philosphical trend of western civilization is that all people are equal. The converse theme, that some people are better than others has led to immense suffering on this planet. Once the idea that some people are inherently better than others creeps in, it is used to justify all sorts of horrors. I highly doubt the crafters of "seperate, but equal" fully comprehended the evil that would done when they legalized segregation, but it was a natural and obvious outgrowth of the idea that "the races" aren't equal.

Even more offensive is that the idea is a lie. There is no proof whatsoever that "the races," whatever they are, are unequal. Every single "study" that shows Blacks to be the intellectual inferiors of whites has been decisively refuted. This can't be stated any more simply. You believe the racist lie because you want to believe it. To say otherwise is to say that there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists that are trying to supress the truth. I just don't think so.

	12-11-2002 11:48									#236
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: The reason I am asking is because, despite what some here are claiming, there is no evidence that all races are equal. So why is this suggestion so offensive?

I could bring up Ramo's pink unicorn example again, but it's getting a bit overused. There's NO EVIDENCE at all to suggest that the 'races' aren't equal, or even that 'races' exist as distinct entities at all. You're the one that needs to present evidence here.

	12-11-2002 15:41									#237
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's No-one is saying the colour of the skin causes it. More that evolutionary differences are more than just adaptation to sunlight.

But, as just one example, the variety of different tribes in Africa which the US and ultimately UK black populations came from had a wide variety of societies. The ones who were most likely to be sold into slavery were the more peaceful ones, captured and sold by the more warlike tribes to the white man. So you must be assuming that they have somehow evolved into violent criminals in the last 200 years? Or that black africa was a hotbed of violent crime within it's own societies before the white man arrived and ****ed them over? The historical evidence just doesn't back that up in any way.

And you are STILL totally ignoring that there might be a societal reason for the increase in crime. Why won't you even consider that? That is what makes everything you say about this issue racist.

Prove to me that there is no possibility of the nature of the society in which someone is brought up changing the likely hood of them becoming a criminal and then we can look at your allegations that it's because black people are 'naturally' more likely to become criminals.

	12-11-2002 15:46									#238
	Suffering from ads?

Tying evolutionary difference to skin colour for no other reason then skin colour is what we see obscures scientific research in itself, ignoring trends that cross racial boundaries. Its just plain stinkin' thinkin'

	12-11-2002 15:52									#239
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

what about cases where parents have one white child and one black child, are these children different races?

	12-11-2002 15:52									#240
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yes. As I think someone already mentioned. The differences in physiology within each race wrt height, weight, muscle structure, fat levels, etc. etc. etc. are much more different than between the skin colours if you average out all the sub types within each skin colour grouping and compare them. That's if you can even define what skin tones fit into what group.