Thank you. I was wondering why that post was left hanging.
(Or maybe Riemann was only referring to eye color, hair color, and melanoma? If so, they should have said so, because as it is their post is pretty bad.)
I mean skin color correlates with certain physical differences. My family extraction is almost all British Isles on both sides, I am pale white and had lighter colored hair before it went gray. I have had several minor melanomas removed from my body since age 30. Low melanin content in the skin absolutely makes you more prone to this, and since it is genuinely related to lack of melanin, it is directly correlated with skin color.
The same lack of melanin leads to very easy sunburning (which directly of course, relates to skin color.) When I grew up I spent much of my time outdoors and then joined the military, I just let myself burn for many years, now I don’t go out without sunblock, but I did a lot of damage to my skin that, had my skin had more melanin in it, would have been lessened quite a bit.
I mean but your skin color is essentially a function of how “much” melanin you have, right? I don’t think it is possible to be light skinned and have high amounts of melanin, or vice versa? My understanding is there is basically only one selective advantage to light skin (and many disadvantages)–that you absorb UV radiation better due to less melanin, which, when my ancestors actually lived in the high latitudes they inhabited when this trait was selected for, had some benefits for vitamin D synthesis and calcium production etc, but in modern times just makes me less equipped to be outside without a thick layer of sunblock than someone whose ancestors have skin that wasn’t evolved for high latitudes.
True, not even these things (hair and eye color) are inherently bound to skin color — they’re just partially correlated (looking at the current world population as a whole) due to the accidents of human geohistory (i.e., no more remarkable or interesting than saying “most people in Ancient Greece wrote with letters borrowed from Phonoecian”).
Yeah, I mean I took Riemann’s comments to essentially be talking about things consequent to that, if he meant something else I guess that would be incorrect, he’ll have to clarify.
Both. It is wrong to be a party to an illegal act due to the consequence of breaking the law; the duty to follow the law corresponds to the consequences of breaking it.
Max. We are talking about morality, not the realpolitik action you end up taking.
Turning in the slave is wrong. If you are so terrified of the tyrannical authorities that you feel like you have no choice, that has no bearing on whether the act of turning the slave in was a moral one or not. It may mean you made an amoral decision for an unserstandable reason, but it doesn’t change the underlying morality of the act.