The Sad Truth About Racists

Post Reply New Topic

Laughable gainsaying. Typing in bold doesn't make your words any more correct. Genetic tests show marked genetic differences between the races, and genes influence phenotypic traits. So please explain to us how nature has somehow contrived to make it so that the marked genetic differences between the races only relate to genes influencing "superficial" traits.



I'm not particularly interested in the labels you use, but since the idea of a "conservative" round these parts is someone like, say, Bill O'Reilly, I'm rather less bothered about being accused of "racism" than being accused of "conservatism".

PS - The next time someone on this board argues the case for racial equality as a fact of nature, can we expect to see Vigilans asking them for scientific evidence? After all, he's just a skeptical enquirer.

How about you prove races are unequal? And I mean, provide real scientific evidence, not racist diatribes.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hardly. All I requested was evidence, which is a fairly modest thing to ask for. You guys could actually provide me with something tangible. You after all hold these beliefs, and are willing to belittle yourself and I by making this a pointlessly hostile exchange to somehow prove they are valid. I bold things for emphasis, it doesn't mean anything of what you're implying. My position is that there are differences (there are certainly some things that are more common to people of different genetic groups- rosacea amongst north-western Europeans for example) but they do not amount to anything as to what guys like David Duke, or, dare I say it- Adolf Hitler- claim. You look at Human history it does not make the case for any one race being the best. Chance and having the right resources at the right time are what make a civilization reach a point that lead some of it's population to a superiority complex.



What exactly is it that you're even claiming- I get your general thesis, that you consider there to be superior genetic traits that are attributable to the human's "racial" background. That is an old idea and has gotten a lot of support in the past.. We agree there are superficial differences (though perhaps you don't consider them that superficial), but I want to know exactly what the differences you are referring to are. What differences do you consider to be caused by marked genetic traits in particular groups that lead them to be inferior or superior to others? What evidence is there for it?



You would only need a few instruments including your eyes to prove the world is round. But I digress

If you are referring to cultural differences, than that is an obvious conclusion. You find cultural differences between even small units of people. I just object to this idea that it is based upon inferior or superior genetic traits. If that's not what you are thinking than I apologize for mistaking your position



No, I don't actually think bad of you, despite our occasional disagreements

The sad truth about racists is that their days are numbered. Who will complain about natural variation when their neighbor's kid is genetically engineered. The anger will be redirected.

But I think it's inevitable that they will find some advantages and differences between populations. They've already found a handful and the list will grow.

That's a good point. I guess the anger could be redirected at non-engineered people. Not unlike in that film Gattaca

Which advantages are you referring to?

What a letdown

The desirability of "genetic engineering" is based on the questionable assumption that we are totally the result of our genetic makeup. Not so. Our individual histories and experiences have just as much to do with what we our as our genomes.

ruveyn

No one said totally. But it's a significant factor. If evolution can grab it and change it, so can we. A motivated chimp won't create Microsoft.



Beyond the distribution of diseases there is something about a region of italy where a mutation has increased resistance to heart disease. There has been something about an adaption in Tibetans that leads them to process oxygen better. There is the discovery that some islanders in SE asia can have as much as 8-10% of their DNA contributed from non-homo sapiens. Those other human groups were isolated from us for many hundreds of thousands of years. Longer than the isolation that resulted in grizzly bears and polar bears. Who can say what they might find in there.

And then there are strange things like the sprinting ability of West Africans that suggest some genetic advantage. Something that gives them a 10th of a second edge is possible.

I just can't imagine that all populations are exactly equal in the distribution of all traits. It makes no sense to me.

They aren't. But how much of a difference, do the differences make? People are as much a product of their choices and the accidents that befall them as they are of their genetic makeup. How much bettier is the west African who does not practice rigorously?

ruveyn

What people don't realise is that you can become racist through bad personal experiences, not just through written propaganda and what others say.

The only likely way that would happen is if Britain became a majority Muslim country. The other way it could happen is if Islam underwent the same process as Christianity did, which started with the Reformation, and its followers stop believing in it in the same way they do now. Either Britain would have to radically change, or Islam would - I bet on Britain changing before Islam (but the sheer horror that most secular British people have towards Islam makes this really unlikely).

Though seriously, I think both are unlikely to happen. Pakistanis are just going to continue to live in this country the way they have for 50 years - in the same areas as poor whites, enjoying the mutual racism and distrust on both sides. Maybe those said poor whites will get used to them in a few generations (I hope so) and I think the distrust will die down - but Pakistanis are not going to consider themselves English. I asked someone at work what her nationality was (she was Pakistani) and she said 'Islam'. The fact that they tend to marry back home means that we have an ever-fresh supply of first generation immigrants coming in on marriage visas. Maybe if more UK born Desis married UK born Desis (this is starting to happen more and more now) it would help with the community to be seen as part of British life - but it's always going to be separate as long as we live in a secular/culturally Christian country.

I don't think it would be a bad thing if a group is racially and culturally separate, if they accept and are accepted by the dominant group. That's the idea behind multiculturalism, which I don't think is working yet with this particular group. However, I'm not quite as doomy about it as many rightwingers because I've lived in a multi-ethnic area all my life and there is more tolerance in these places than people think.

The melting-pot idea doesn't work as well in Europe with non-European immigrants. It works in America, but for various reasons it wouldn't be practical in a small European country. Multiculturalism does actually work, usually.

Maybe you mean Jamaican sprinters like world record holder Usain Bolt?

Is It In The Knees?
Published: Monday | December 29, 2014
http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/2014 ... orts1.html
Researchers try to discover how Jamaican sprinters outrun the world

Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is the fastest person in the world. (photo at link)

He is the very first Olympic athlete to hold 100 metres and 200 metres world records, having accomplished the former in just under 10 seconds in 2009. He can also travel for 30 miles per hour on foot and in some small towns, that is already the driving norm.

Scientists have long wondered about Bolt's extraordinary speeds.

In their search for Usain's sprint secrets, researchers stumbled upon Bolt's country Jamaica, home to some of the world's most elite sprinters. Researchers have begun to wonder how Jamaica, a country with less people than New York City, gave birth to some of the best runners history has ever known.

physiology

Rutgers University decided to investigate the Usain Bolt phenomenon, and their first step to uncover the secrets of Jamaica's greatest runners is to go through the physiology.

Scientists hypothesised that the alignment of the knees may have had something to do with how Jamaican runners perform on the track and they began to test their ideas by examining the knees of 74 elite Jamaican sprinters, including well-known names such as Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce and Nesta Carter.

They then compared them to a control of 116 Jamaicans who have no experience with the sport. After factoring in sex, age and other external variables in their comparisons, they have concluded that the knees of those who belonged to the athlete group were more symmetrical than those from the control group.

According to Futurity, although the scientists have established a clear relationship between knee symmetry and running speed, no causative relation between the two variables has been concluded.

Robert Trivers, a scientist from Rutgers, says although there is an observable relationship, the nature of the link between symmetry and speed is yet to be established.

Trivers said: "We don't know for sure whether the sprinters are great sprinters because their knees are symmetrical, or whether their knees are symmetrical because of all the time they spend practicing."

In the future, the researchers aim to study more complex details about the runners' anatomies, including minute differences between the left and the right leg. He also aims to do genetic research to discover how Jamaican runners outrun sprinters from other countries.

The study is published in the online journal PLOS one.

True what OP says.

Here in Sweden for exemple, the leader for the biggest fascist political party (Sverigedemokraterna) is smart as hell. He have brainwashed 12,9 % to vote on his political party. His companions are also smart.