quote:

Do you see blacks as less intelligent than whites and Asians? Why or why not?

quote:


On what objective fact do you base the equality of all humans?

quote:


Their is a big difference between seeing physical differences (He's tall, she's short, etc) and ascribing to an entire race less intelligence.

quote:


I did that earlier.

quote:

If this is the way you’re defining racism, I don’t think you can avoid the fact that the definition will be different depending on what traits are most valuable in a given society.

quote:

I think it’s interesting that even though in most cases Christians think that morals are absolute, and non-religious people tend to subscribe to a more relativistic moral system, in this case I consider the definition of racism to be universal to any society and you’re saying that it varies from society to society depending on what traits are most valuable there, even though I’m not a Christian and you are. If this is how you’re going to define racism, you should not complain that our understanding of human ability can change as a result of scientific discoveries—since by your definition of racism, what opinions are and aren’t racist are subject to change based on what traits are most valuable.

quote:

I asked you once before to show me where the support for the existence of this difference actually involves the theory of evolution, and you ignored my question. If you ignore it again, it will demonstrate pretty clearly that there is no support for your claim about this.

quote:


This is of course absurd; no one defines racism this way. Racism is simply prejudice and discrimination based on race. As much as what you are saying translates into “blacks are less intelligent than whites” you are racist.

quote:


You are advocating judging the abilities of an entire race based on assumptions about genetics and intelligence; you are advocating racism, and a society that acted as you suggest would be an inherently racist one, setting us back to the worst times of civil liberty abuses. It’s simply a more sophisticated version of the klan, based on ‘research’ instead of the pure assertion that blacks aren’t as capable as whites. It’s rather sick, actually, and quite frankly I am losing respect for you with every post.

quote:

This is of course absurd; no one defines racism this way. Racism is simply prejudice and discrimination based on race. As much as what you are saying translates into “blacks are less intelligent than whites” you are racist.

quote:

You already drew the link yourself in post 171.

quote:

Racism is discrimination based on race. Saying that Africans on average are less intelligent than other races (on average) is not racism or a racist statement. If it is true, it is a statement of fact. Agahnim is not saying that Africans are inferior, or using their race to discriminate against them.

quote:

Saying that Swedes are more lactose tolerant than say, the Vietnamese is not racist. In this case, it is a fact. 99% of Swedes are lactose tolerant, which compared to other races, is a higher percentage. I am not saying that Swedes are superior, or using their race to discriminate them.

quote:

You seem to be reading into his post more than he actually means. I don't think Agahnim is racist, and I don't think he's saying racist things. If I said that Pacific Islanders are on average darker than Mongolians, am I being racist? Nope. So how is this different to saying that Islanders are on average more intelligent than Mongolians? I'm not making any statement whatsoever on the inferiority of Mongolians to Pacific Islanders, nor am I using this information to discriminate against them or prejudice them. It's not racist.

quote:

Michael Medved, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, has provided his view on the importance and influence of American DNA and genetics on the national character.

"The idea of a distinctive, unifying, risk-taking American DNA might also help to explain our most persistent and painful racial divide – between the progeny of every immigrant nationality that chose to come here, and the one significant group that exercised no choice in making their journey to the U.S. Nothing in the horrific ordeal of African slaves, seized from their homes against their will, reflected a genetic predisposition to risk-taking, or any sort of self-selection based on personality traits."

It can't get any more scientific than that! The descendants of slaves just don't have as high a concentration of American DNA. No wonder they don't succeed as well (on average) as risk-taking (dare I say... normal) Americans.

It's also hard to argue with his statement that welfare is not only un-American... it may even be unnatural! After all, if one's position in society is genetically determined, then it ought to be genetically determined. Who are we to tinker with the natural order? Fascinating new results from Michael Medved of the DI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
First off, they aren't his or DI's 'results’, so by saying that you are being intentionally deceptive;

quote:

Of course, you and the others who see human abilities as primarily genetic

quote:

I haven't said that, nor do I believe that.

quote:



On what objective fact do you base the equality of all humans? How do you measure worth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Their is a big difference between seeing physical differences (He's tall, she's short, etc) and ascribing to an entire race less intelligence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Racism is discrimination based on race. Saying that Africans on average are less intelligent than other races (on average) is not racism or a racist statement. If it is true, it is a statement of fact. Agahnim is not saying that Africans are inferior, or using their race to discriminate against them.

You know, in the years I spent at the law firm never heard that if something is fact based it’s not discrimination. It would make a fascinating legal defense:

Judge: Sir, you are here in court today because you are charged with discriminating against people of Mexican descent by systematically refusing to rent apartments to them – what do you have to say in your defense?

Defendant: Well judge, I am not discriminating because I have facts on my side. I commissioned a study, and I found people of Hispanic origin are 10% more likely to be late paying their rent; this would be an administrative cost I am unwilling to carry, so I simply don’t rent to those people.

Judge: I am sorry sir – if the court had realized what you were doing was based on facts, this case would have never seen the light of day. I’m dropping the charges, and you are free to go – and godspeed sir.

quote:

The judge should disallow the defence. Even if the defendant is correct on his facts, it does not follow that the particular Hispanic couple applying to rent the apartment is one of the 10%. And the essence of discrimination is to punish particulars for group characteristics which may not be personally relevant to them. After all, by his own facts, they are more likely to be among the 90% who pay their rent on time.

quote:

Well, physical differences are also, to some extent, racial. Asians on average are not as tall as Caucasians and some African groups (e.g Maasai) are on average very tall. So it is not just an individual difference.

What makes it a big difference if one is measuring intelligence instead of height or hair colour? Are you suggesting that human worth is dependent on intelligence in a way that it is not dependent on height?

Why? In particular, what in your faith would tie worth to intelligence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

The judge should disallow the defence. Even if the defendant is correct on his facts...

quote:

However, saying we aren't all mentally equal is much dfferent then ascribing to an entire race of some 1 billion people lesser intelligence based on a modern western measures of genetics and intelligence; and I think that is what is being argued for here.

quote:

I’ve already addressed this point, multiple times. When I did so again in my most recent reply to you, you didn’t even attempt to answer what I had to say in response.

Are you throwing in the towel so soon with regard to actually supporting what you’re saying here? I hadn’t predicted you would be so quick to demonstrate in the most obvious possible way, which I predicted in my previous post, that you’re incapable of changing your mind when presented with information showing your position to be incorrect.

Not that it’s a problem or anything. As I mentioned before, your having demonstrated this will only make it easier for the pro-evolution side in any future debates you’re involved in here.

quote:

More importantly, the law does not allow you to ignore it, no matter how many facts you have at your disposal. Almost the opposite, in fact.

It is a fact that women are more likely than men to take off months of work because of maternity leave. It is a fact that this is a pain in the butt for employers. Nevertheless, we have passed laws to prevent employers from discriminating against women for this, or any other, reason, based in fact or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I don't tie worth to intelligence; indeed I don't tie human worth to any physical attribute, and I don't think a true notion of equality could be tied to any physical attributes, because there is no such thing as physical or mental equality. We are created equal, and when this notion is abandoned, so does the reality of equality in our society; and as much as a materialist or naturalist notion influences our society, it diminishes true equality.

quote:

However, saying we aren't all mentally equal is much dfferent then ascribing to an entire race of some 1 billion people lesser intelligence based on a modern western measures of genetics and intelligence; and I think that is what is being argued for here.

quote:

I note that you consistently leave out the word "average" which I think is an important qualifier. I think it a basic of human rights understanding that individuals are dealt with as individuals and not on the basis of group averages whatever they may be. No one, not even Watson, is suggesting that an entire race of some 1 billion people are all of lesser intelligence than people of other origins. I do agree with you that "modern western measures" can be misleading. A test of intelligence devised by the Roraima people of Brasil would probably rate most New Yorkers as cretins.

OTOH, that article on neuro-science you referenced mentioned a device called the IQ Cap which, with a few electrodes, measured intelligence as accurately as the Wechsler Test. Is this more objective? If one doesn't depend on culturally biased information, it's a step in the right direction, but if the standard by which its accuracy is measured is culturally biased, what then?

quote:

You aren't arguing for evolution, but the acceptance of racism; and that will make you no friends here.

quote:

I note that you consistently leave out the word "average" which I think is an important qualifier. I think it a basic of human rights understanding that individuals are dealt with as individuals and not on the basis of group averages whatever they may be. No one, not even Watson, is suggesting that an entire race of some 1 billion people are all of lesser intelligence than people of other origins. I do agree with you that "modern western measures" can be misleading. A test of intelligence devised by the Roraima people of Brasil would probably rate most New Yorkers as cretins.

OTOH, that article on neuro-science you referenced mentioned a device called the IQ Cap which, with a few electrodes, measured intelligence as accurately as the Wechsler Test. Is this more objective? If one doesn't depend on culturally biased information, it's a step in the right direction, but if the standard by which its accuracy is measured is culturally biased, what then?

quote:

Excellent! Keep going. Your refusal to answer what I’m asking about how you define racism becomes more obvious with each post.

You’ve already made it clear that you think it’s racist to say one ethnic group has higher average of intelligence than another, but not to say that one has greater physical ability or is less likely to be lactose-intolerant, and this is your explanation for why it’s racist to say this about intelligence and not most other traits: “We live in the information age, where success can depend largely on one’s intellectual prowess.” So tell me again now: since this is the criteria you use to determine that it’s racist to say this about intelligence but not other traits, how is it “absurd” to say that which traits it’s racist to say this about depends on which traits are most valuable for success in a given society?

I eagerly await your next ad hominem attack, which will evade my point even more obviously than everything you’ve posted so far.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, yeah, that was my point; simply saying "I have certain facts" doesn't justify racism.

quote:

What I have said over the course of several posts, despite your inability to read, is that I doubt a direct connection between intelligence and genetics, I doubt one could extrapolate that out to a genetically diverse population of some 1 billion people, and doubt that western measures of intelligence serve well as an objective baseline by which to measure human intelligence.

quote:

I also see how making such general claims could be, and I imagine already are, abused by people who will be racist no matter what the findings are. I see this because in addition to having a scientific background, I also have a modicum of common sense.

I do not think intelligence is purely physical; it can include culture, parenting, determination, interest, etc. I have known too many idiots with high IQs and been to too many places where western notions of intelligence would be worthless to have a simple-minded, myopic, self-serving notion of intelligence be of any worth when evaluating the actual capabilites of persons of any race.

Can I be any more clear, or does your limited intelligence require further explanation?

quote:

Still not answering my questions, I see. Perhaps you’ve finally given up on the idea that believing this difference in intelligence to exist is inherently racist, and that the support for its existence is based on the theory of evolution. Although if you have abandoned these claims, I don’t really expect you to admit it.

quote:

Interestingly, I already answered both of these points, one of them in my previous post. Some of the ways in which this difference in intelligence is measured (such as synapse speed) are methods that are incapable of favoring one culture over another, and children adopted by members of a different race still tend to retain the IQ associated with the race of their biological parents, rather than the cultural environment in which they’re raised. As for the connection between intelligence and genetics (as well as race), I linked to an article explaining it several posts ago.

Unsurprisingly, when I made these points previously in this thread, you ignored them. So, clarify your opinion here: my “inability to read” is responsible for you failing to notice when one of your points has been refuted?

quote:

I never disagreed with either of these two points. I’ve already pointed out that people who would be racist regardless of what the findings are will use whatever excuse they can find to justify their beliefs. The psychological data I’ve described will probably be abused in this way, and Christianity has been abused countless times in the same manner. However, this does not mean that these findings (or Christianity) actually support the way in which people abuse them.

As for intelligence not being the only thing that matters, I agree with that also, and so does James Watson. This is why he and I agree that it’s unreasonable to equate greater ability in this single area with actual “superiority”.

Let’s not get distracted here by things that I already agree with, and have previously pointed out that I agree with. Do you have any more to say about your points that I’ve been challenging you to support for the past several pages?