How’s this for emotional: read the thread, you idiot. The stuff you are asking about has already been discussed.
So what? The consequences would be bad. Don’t shout fire in a crowded theater – people might get hurt. Don’t blame Jews for world problems – people might get hurt (also, it’s factually false). That’s an appeal to consequences.
We’re challenging it factually, and we’re also saying “you shouldn’t promote this idea because it’s racist and would have bad consequences”.
We’re categorically NOT saying that this idea is false because it would have bad consequences. We’re saying it’s false, and we’re also saying it would have bad consequences.
Maybe that would decrease the frequency of the posts!
(Hey, a girl can dream.)
It depends on whether there is a fire or not.
This is the key part we agree on. Whether something is offensive or not has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.
That being said, many people already lean somewhat towards or against a particular conclusion even at the very beginning of a debate, based off of confirmation bias. And that confirmation bias then persists throughout the discussion.
And if your leaning is toward “Them blacks is dum,” you’re a fucking racist.
It’s the circle of thread.
Do you think black people have inferior genes for intelligence, on average, than white people?
Most of us consider this too obvious to even bother pointing out because it renders the entire metaphor pointless. Thank you for establishing where you’re approaching this discussion from.
Indeed, one should notice here that our “speedy” friend here is right now defending nativist hate groups that are passing themselves as Christian in the “A Pitting of the good Christians of the American Family Association” Thread.
Sure. And in this case there is no flame, there is no smoke, there is no ash. There is no evidence for a fire at all.
ETA: Goddammit, Marley.
.
I think it remains unproven for or against.
Some people (I don’t mean you personally) are in a rush, because of emotion, to claim that genetics can’t be the reason. The fact is, it has not been definitively proven correct or incorrect.
There is evidence that specifically counters this claim, and there is no evidence that specifically promotes it.
Therefore, it seems to me, that it should be treated just like (for example) the assertion that Jews are genetically greedier and more dishonest than non-Jews – it should be totally dismissed without extraordinary evidence.
Some people are in a rush to say this is about emotion and ignore the fact that are being brought to the table. This is because they’re full of shit.
And remember: the intelligence and humanity of black people is at best academic, and it has no connection to the real world.
Personality traits are not something I’d analyze genetically; I don’t think it fits well within the realm of genetics.
A better example would be something like physical stature. I’m Asian, for instance. I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that there are differences in average height between Asian races and other races that are partly genetic, when all other factors such as nutrition, exercise, etc. are taken into account. But that needs more scientific analysis.
Many “racial realists” would disagree with you.
In any case, the idea that the genes for intelligence are correlated to race is no more supported than the idea that the genes for greed and dishonesty are correlated to race. So I think both claims fit in the same category.
I don’t believe the genes for intelligence are more similar to the genes for height than the genes for personality traits.
To address another issue, I’ve always felt culture and upbringing plays a far, far greater role in academic performance than intelligence. But for a variety of reasons that’s actually often an even more incendiary topic than genetics.
If you talk about culture in a stereotyped and racist way, yes, that’s plenty incendiary.
The issue is emotionally charged for a reason, several reasons actually, many of which have been raised in this very thread. Calls to set emotion aside and approach this from a For Science mindset ignore the very real, and often tragic history attached to the question at hand; is one race superior to another race, or races? As such, and as has been alluded to already by other posters in this thread, we’re dealing with an extraordinary claim, one that requires extraordinary proof.
That proof is absent. Until that proof can be provided, (which I suspect is right around half past not gonna happen) you can expect emotional reactions relating to this matter. There are real ramifications involved, after all, as history has shown.
On what basis do you factually distinguish “intelligence” from culture or upbringing?
I don’t want to get into the racial aspect of this debate, but are you saying that inherited genes have nothing to do with how bright or dull a progeny might be?
We have have friends that are married and are pharmacists. Their 3 children are all MDs now. Was this an aberration or was it all due to their home life coupled with their privilege?
I am not saying this, nor do I believe anyone else is.