Soooo, is it environment or genetics?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
NO, you used the term in a definition, you better define it[/quote]
What a cop out. I am using a standard definition of historical context. I.e. that blacks were an oppressed group not so long ago and that race was a significant factor in the oppression. Ears were not.
Now you said that based on that definition historical context is nothing but an emotion. So prove it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
This is the collectivist drivel that is the exact problem with most of the world today. Getting fired for a dumb reason hurts the same regardless if that reason is tied to race or not.
[/quote]
It hurts oh no. Boo fucking hoo. A person getting upset because they were fired is not the problem. The problem is systematic oppression.
Nor can you prove it hurts the same regardless if it was tied to race or not. I am sure many people would be more hurt and offended if they were fired for race than fired because they had big ears.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are advocating punishing people for possible social consequences. This is insane.
[/quote]
Why is this insane?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By this same logic the government should have acces to every desition we make.
[/quote]
How so? I have only mentioned issues that can cause extreme social problems and wrongs.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
collectives cannot by definition feel, or touch or be hurt or think. They do not have rights. They are not real entities. Things done in the name of the majority are nothing but the lowest form of evil. The individual is all anyone is. The individual is all that can matter.[/quote]
…This is just drivel. The individuals in a collective can feel, touch, hurt and think. They have rights.
Hence an action that hurts a collective in turn hurts many of the individuals in the collective.
Finally what do you mean by real? You are throwing the word all over the place. How is a collective not real?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
Or why not start a program to help the poor, or the underclass, or the un-educated in general?[/quote]
Because we have. And the report suggests the explanation is beyone simply “poverty.”[/quote]
The cause and the problem may be 2 different things. The problem is that some kinds aren’t being educated, The cause could be any number of things. A program to help the uneducated in general would attempt to address both, without the stipulation of race.[/quote]
Wouldn’t that be a waste of resources? Inefficient?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sooo…are we entertaining genetic engineering, throwing in the towel on black success, or extermination? Otherwise, what’s the point of the genetic angle that’s developed here? How about trying to influence a cultural change?[/quote]
Or why not start a program to help the poor, or the underclass, or the un-educated in general?[/quote]
Because we have. And the report suggests the explanation is beyone simply “poverty.”[/quote]
The cause and the problem may be 2 different things. The problem is that some kinds aren’t being educated, The cause could be any number of things. A program to help the uneducated in general would attempt to address both, without the stipulation of race.[/quote]
Wouldn’t that be a waste of resources? Inefficient?[/quote]
No. If there is a gene that is causing it. Treat those with the gene. If there is a parental action that is causing it, treat the parental action. There is no need to stipulate things in regard to race.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. If there is a gene that is causing it. Treat those with the gene. If there is a parental action that is causing it, treat the parental action. There is no need to stipulate things in regard to race.[/quote]
Yeah because those ideas aren’t 100x more invasive and expensive than simply looking at race. :S
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
NO, you used the term in a definition, you better define it[/quote]
What a cop out. I am using a standard definition of historical context. I.e. that blacks were an oppressed group not so long ago and that race was a significant factor in the oppression. Ears were not.
[/quote]
No, it’s standard rules of argument.
So what matters is how many people its happened too. You know in Africa people who resemble Europeans have been persecuted and exterminated right? So looking European should be protected?
And who gets to define who belongs to what group? Do black people that look white count? The distinction is retarded.
It hurts oh no. Boo fucking hoo. A person getting upset because they were fired is not the problem. The problem is systematic oppression.
Nor can you prove it hurts the same regardless if it was tied to race or not. I am sure many people would be more hurt and offended if they were fired for race than fired because they had big ears.
[/quote]
You can’t prove it hurts more. which is something you must do in order to justify adding protection to one person over another.
Why is this insane?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By this same logic the government should have acces to every desition we make.
[/quote]
How so? I have only mentioned issues that can cause extreme social problems and wrongs.
[/quote]
Fast food causes them. All of the things I mentioned can. Poor breeding practices are responsible for many “societal woes”. We have a right to control reproduction? Do I get to decide that? Because I think that breeding people of your ilk is bad for society and I should have the right to prevent your reproduction.
But the bigger problem is who gets to decide what is extreme and what is a problem? Many people see gay marriage in that light, so they have a right to ban it? And even further, who gets to hold the crystal ball that says what action might cause one of these things in the future? You or me?
[quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
collectives cannot by definition feel, or touch or be hurt or think. They do not have rights. They are not real entities. Things done in the name of the majority are nothing but the lowest form of evil. The individual is all anyone is. The individual is all that can matter.[/quote]
…This is just drivel. The individuals in a collective can feel, touch, hurt and think. They have rights.
Hence an action that hurts a collective in turn hurts many of the individuals in the collective.[/quote]
This “individuals in a collective can feel” does not equal “hurts a collective”. Do you notice that to describe collective effects you are forced to define them in individual terms? A collective does not have a consciousness, it cannot have the traits of an individual.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. If there is a gene that is causing it. Treat those with the gene. If there is a parental action that is causing it, treat the parental action. There is no need to stipulate things in regard to race.[/quote]
Yeah because those ideas aren’t 100x more invasive and expensive than simply looking at race. :S[/quote]
So wait if you aren’t talking about a gene in relation to race, what are you discussing?
How do we go about looking at race?
And more importantly, Should we not be attempting to help the sub-standard white students too? 60% of whites failing is probably larger than 80% of blacks. Why are people here advocating the ignoring of the fact that most white kids are also failing? Oh right, because people here are focusing on race instead of the actual cause and actual problem.
This is exactly what I’ve been trying to point out.
I was poor growing up and did great in school. Fail.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But even within strain there is normal distribution around the mean. prediction and probability are statistical pehnomena and do not mean this is the way it is 100% of the time,
but to say there is no scientific evidence as mentioned above is absurd.
and what you are stating are all pieces of the same puzzle.
environment can force a specific trait to be more survivable. thus altering the genome. whether it is natural selction or selective breeding. it can end in the same way. A genetically discernable trait, group of traits or genotypic evidence for an expressed phenotype.
but then what we clasically define as race is not completely relevant, as it does subcategorize the species completely, or account for all the genetic variability.
sorry for the looping string of thought[/quote]
I’ve always figured that there must be a reason the probability of a blonde/blue child being born in the remote bushmen tribe is negligibly small. Didn’t know there was a known genetic backing for this as I keep hearing that all humans share the same genome(with the exception of mutations of course).
[/quote]
they do share the same genome, now you are playing semantics, never said they didn’t share the same genome, but activity or numeration of pathways will be different, or which amino acids are transposed creating different proteins, metabolic pathways,
in describing a geneome it is more mapping of regions.
but it’s not a real science so what does it matter, right DD
just busting , with that. I understand what you are getting at though. the parameters are not as clearly defined. It requires more study.
as to the problem of the thread. It is cultural, it is environmental and it is genetic. There are many confounding factors and it is hard to remove said variables. So we need to use all the information we have and not neglect some because it may offend people that we study the color of their skin or regionthey grew up in.
but hand outs don’t help, if anything it has hurt in this instance.
read that however you want
^ You teach that.
I know a high school teacher that teaches at a school of predominantly black kids and (this is going to sound racist but it’s just what it is) it was all he could do to keep kids from just siting in the back of the class and rapping and recording it on their cell phones. If he tried to intervene they’d just call him a fatass and the class would generally get unruly. What’s he supposed to do?
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But even within strain there is normal distribution around the mean. prediction and probability are statistical pehnomena and do not mean this is the way it is 100% of the time,
but to say there is no scientific evidence as mentioned above is absurd.
and what you are stating are all pieces of the same puzzle.
environment can force a specific trait to be more survivable. thus altering the genome. whether it is natural selction or selective breeding. it can end in the same way. A genetically discernable trait, group of traits or genotypic evidence for an expressed phenotype.
but then what we clasically define as race is not completely relevant, as it does subcategorize the species completely, or account for all the genetic variability.
sorry for the looping string of thought[/quote]
I’ve always figured that there must be a reason the probability of a blonde/blue child being born in the remote bushmen tribe is negligibly small. Didn’t know there was a known genetic backing for this as I keep hearing that all humans share the same genome(with the exception of mutations of course).
[/quote]
they do share the same genome, now you are playing semantics, never said they didn’t share the same genome, but activity or numeration of pathways will be different, or which amino acids are transposed creating different proteins, metabolic pathways,…
[/quote]
Cool. Are these “features” programmed in the DNA or is there some other mechanism responsible for them?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But even within strain there is normal distribution around the mean. prediction and probability are statistical pehnomena and do not mean this is the way it is 100% of the time,
but to say there is no scientific evidence as mentioned above is absurd.
and what you are stating are all pieces of the same puzzle.
environment can force a specific trait to be more survivable. thus altering the genome. whether it is natural selction or selective breeding. it can end in the same way. A genetically discernable trait, group of traits or genotypic evidence for an expressed phenotype.
but then what we clasically define as race is not completely relevant, as it does subcategorize the species completely, or account for all the genetic variability.
sorry for the looping string of thought[/quote]
I’ve always figured that there must be a reason the probability of a blonde/blue child being born in the remote bushmen tribe is negligibly small. Didn’t know there was a known genetic backing for this as I keep hearing that all humans share the same genome(with the exception of mutations of course).
[/quote]
they do share the same genome, now you are playing semantics, never said they didn’t share the same genome, but activity or numeration of pathways will be different, or which amino acids are transposed creating different proteins, metabolic pathways,…
[/quote]
Cool. Are these “features” programmed in the DNA or is there some other mechanism responsible for them?
[/quote]
programmed in but can be triggered by environmental factors.
a good example is one place I worked at we were differentiating stem cells by the use of different media, into different tissues and even organs. Started with rat cells but they are now able to do this with human tissue.
weight 200+ lbs
grow a beard
shout with a baritone voice
laugh hard and often
tell them millenia old stories
worked for me in similar situations.
Blacks and whites can’t be held to the same standard. Liberals long ago started telling blacks that they are oppressed and equal or better than whites. Ultimately blacks discover that this is not the case and that they cannot do equally well in a white society, for which they are maladapted. Back when black slaves were being shipped to America, Africa was still stone age level and the only difference now is whites have contributed to the continent now, giving it a veil of modernity. This (when blacks have a hard time living up to the expectations) causes outrage and frustration which may erupt in violent, anti-social ways. Culture is an extension of genetics. Mice have their own ‘culture’ as do dogs, cats and great apes. Blacks can lead relatively peaceful and happy lives in their natural enviroment where they are not indoctrinated and expected to abide by the standards of a different species. Under segregation times, this difference was realized and blacks apparently lead more harmonious lives.
[quote]Alffi wrote:
Culture is an extension of genetics. Mice have their own ‘culture’ as do dogs, cats and great apes. Blacks can lead relatively peaceful and happy lives in their natural enviroment where they are not indoctrinated and expected to abide by the standards of a different species. Under segregation times, this difference was realized and blacks apparently lead more harmonious lives.[/quote]
You know, I got into a dispute with someone about the existence of Darwinian racialists and I was trying to remember the name of a forum member who I remembered to be a good example. It wasn’t you, there was another with the same outlook. Even so, thanks for responding…I guess?
[quote]kamui wrote:
as far as i know, international studies have shown that the main factor correlated with illiteracy is not poverty, but monoparental family.
[/quote]
I was just reading an interesting fact that Black US households with 2 parents have consistently only single-digit poverty levels and this has been both constant since the 1930’s and less than the poverty levels for white families.
James Baldwin, a famous Black American author, wrote an interesting piece in which he had the harshest words imaginable for Harriet Beecher Stowe’s famous book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. This was the book (published before the US Civil War) that galvanized the anti-slavery movement. What did he think? That the American protest tradition exemplified in this book and other similar protest novels accepted every single racist stereotype but explained them away as being caused by whites. This in turn caused many well-meaning people to try and support what they thought was Black culture (illiterate, crime-ridden, broken homes) which was making the situation far worse for the Blacks. The Black family and its community was the main reason for the amazing resilience of Blacks and Thomas Sowell argues forcefully that the worse disaster in the last 50 years has been various Federal programs to destroy it in the name of preserving what were never more than racists stereotypes to begin with.
Besides, there is the added problem of white racism itself – there is far, far less of it than most people imaging, but the ruling idea is that it has all gone underground and is in “the system”. When Black students refuse to study and are extremely hostile to becoming part of society this shows that they are really taking the whole thing to heart. Why should they become part of a racist society? Trashing it then is a civic duty and moral obligation. Illiteracy shows you have bested the system in some expansive way. I would argue that part of the failure of Black students is, again, the nature of the way that white culture tries to distance itself from its own past.
My take: It takes a village to raise a child and that starts with at least two full-time caregivers. In many of the immigrant families there are multiple generations still under one roof which means kids get attention. Immigrants also left their homes for a reason and really want to make a new life. Broken families and a floating anger at the dominant culture would bar them too, if they had it, but their new homes mean hope.
And as always, I might just be full of shit…
– jj
Alffi, for fuck’s sake shut the hell up with your racist bullshit. This was a rambling, although thought provoking thread before you showed up.
Very interesting post jj. Sowell is a very thoughtful scholar.
“…Blacks can lead relatively peaceful and happy lives in their natural environment where they are not indoctrinated and expected to abide by the standards of a different species…”
Blacks and whites…are of a different species???
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Blacks can lead relatively peaceful and happy lives in their natural environment where they are not indoctrinated and expected to abide by the standards of a different species…”
Blacks and whites…are of a different species???
Mufasa[/quote]
BUT… mixed babes are a thing of beauty.
If we were different species, there would be none of this. That is a world I wouldn’t want to live in.