Well, like I said, it is not forbidden per se. But if you’re gonna take the approach that msc75 took, you’re gonna find it closed in no time flat.
What was lost here was the opportunity to enlighten the OP (and others reading the post) of the invalidity of his premise, if it was invalid.
FatDave’s point about population numbers show that there was at least one way this argument could have been valid - even interesting.
Maybe the OP was trolling, maybe he/she wasn’t. But it strikes me that a troll OP that turns into an interesting thread either on the relative strengths of global superpowers, or on the fallacy of race, or whatever, is something positive coming out of something negative. Board members were denied the chance to make it thus.
Like Fenris, Libertarian et al, I am disturbed by the stated reason for closing the post. Had they said “closed for trolling” that would have been acceptable. But I thought the very power and essence of these boards was in discussing everything and fighting ignorance.
And what better ignorance to fight than this particular OP’s?
[b}Lib**, what do you think anyone could have learned from that thread?
There’s no indication that the OP meant to use “the races” as the countries, say, China vs. USA vs. Somalia. It seemed he was trying to make all other variables equal but the “race” of the people. How could this be anything but a thread in which to air racism?
Yes, that’s as plain as the proverbial nose on one’s face. But it wasn’t a thread that was closed; it was a discussion that was closed: “this kind of discussion”. That’s what’s bothersome, Coldy.
Nope. No more than inquiring why young black men elevate one pant leg implicitly states that young black men are gang members generally.
Well, we’ll never know now, will we?
. . .
That’s it? That’s it???
Lib, I think you’re overreacting here. See, you highlighted the word “discussion,” and I think that’s the wrong choice. Or at least a wrong choice. Try this:
“This subject matter can be discussed, but not in this way. I see this as trolling and racebaiting. We don’t have a forum for this kind of discussion.”
(Bearing in mind, of course, that I’m not intending to put words in Doc’s mouth.)
That’s how I sees it at least. Your mileage obviously varies.
Andros, you and I shouldn’t be having this kind of discussion.
not necessarily. Seems that Coldfire suggests that a properly worded form in the proper forum wouldn’t get closed automatically (witness the **Sweet Willy ** nonsense and quite a few others as well).
I’m not getting bent over the wording in the Original Thread.
I think it’s guarenteed to bring the racists running out of the woodworks, (and frankly I don’t think we need to encourage additional crap flowing there). And I don’t see, either that it’d be particularly interesting, for me anyhow.
Explain to me, Lib, how you could answer the question “Which race is superior?” without considering the question “Are blacks superior to whites?”
–John
Give me a break! msc75 admits to starting purely arguementative thread. Then goes on to say he/she is not suggesting that any race is superior.
If no race is superior, there is no discussion. The OP is looking to attract racists and trolls.
Flaming is not good, but tolerated in the Pit.
Attracting flames (called trolling) is not tolerated. We don’t have a forum for that.
Attracting trolls (I don’t even know what that is called) is worse than trolling. We certainly don’t have a forum for that!
This discussion would have quickly become a magnet for racists and trolls in any forum.
That’s OK. That’s pretty much the way I see it.
DrMatrix Moderator
Actually, I think we shouldn’t be having this kind of discussion.
John, I believe that the Opening Poster might have meant that question in the context of the broader question, namely the hypothetical war. For instance:
Let’s have a discussion about a hypothetical competition between Lotus and Borland, where they attempt to redesign the basic spreadsheet without using columns and rows. I am by no means suggesting that either company is superior to the other.
[…scenarios, etc…]
I’m leaving you free to use these companies or any others that you see fit, but I’m curious as to which company you think is superior (— for this competition! —). You may use their innovation, their return on investment, their quarterly postings, or any other consideration. There’s more to competition than just the bottom line.
DrMatrix
A prejudicial decision was made as to what the Opening Poster meant. Prejudice, in my opinion, is never warranted in discussions among intellectual peers of our calibre. At the very least, one could seek clarification, especially since every single Great Debate thread that there is could open with, “This is intended to be argumentative.” They are all intended to be that. In Great Debates, we put forth arguments. Other posters, on the same day, were told that they were posting in the wrong place, and their threads were moved.
There is much precedent for both seeking clarification and moving threads. Let us hope that precedent for prejudicial intolerance by people presuming racism as a motive for discussing racial differences is not under development.
Lib, let me explain what I think was the problem in that thread, and why I think you’re getting worked up about this:
Racism is by definition about the innate superiority of one racial group with all mitigating factors aside. It isn’t racist to say American whites are richer than American blacks. But if the statement is, “in equal circumstance, whites will get rich faster than blacks” then 9 times out of 10 the underlying logic will be rooted in racism.
The scenario is, “In equal circumstances, which race would defeat all the others?” How would the thread play out.
There are only a few options:
A) People might attack the validity of the question. If these are the preponderance, than the thread might as well have been locked anyway. So let’s look at:
B) People like yourself debate this reasonably, using nonprejudicial reasons to back their choice.
C) The thread fills up with racist trolls and people flaming them, spawning a huge mess across the Board that ultimately leads to manny manny locked threads and banned posters.
To you (who could argue cogently and with passion about quartz, I imagine), it seemed likely or at least possible enough to take the chance on that reasonable people would discuss this highly charged topic reasonably. To the perhaps more cynical eyes of me, and more importantly of DrMatrix, who had the judgement call, there was no chance in hell and a locking was called for.
–John
Excuse the hijack, but what’s your damage? Maybe Mr. Snarkypants needs a nap.
Esprix
I think that a discussion of perhaps which race would be physically superior in certain circumstances could work. For instance, most blacks tend to have wider nostrils and larger lungs than whites. This particular feature could allow them to take in greater amounts of oxygen thus allowing them to be more physically competent in higher altitudes than say a white person of similar height and weight. On the other hand this feature would probably not be as useful in other circumstances, and it could even prove to be detrimental at some point. I am not particularly interested in this sort of discussion, and I’m sure that it would attract many racists and trolls. So I can see a need for it to be closed. Although if there were a way of keeping out the racists, then I suppose it could make a half decent GD thread.
As for the idea that there is no forum for this kind of discussion, that does kind of bug me.
Okeedokee, I’ll bite.
Cite?
andros: It’s as plain as the nose on your face!
(Sorry. Couldn’t resist. I’ll leave now.)
Is it a sign of the times Coldie that this thread wasn’t allowed to stand? In the past we’ve had many valuable and truly educational discussions in GD which were started with highly prejudicial and bigoted OPs.
I would go so far as to say that the majority of GDs I’ve regarded as worth bookmarking have been started by someone with an agenda and whom no side wanted to “claim”.
Yes, often the OPs are “chain-jerking” or even trolling; but often those of us on opposing sides of the fence come to a greater understanding of each other’s viewpoints as a result of having to define our own beliefs/opinions/viewpoints in light of those OPs. Often, we discover that our commonalities are much greater than our differences.
People who hang in GD do so for one of two reasons - either because their minds are totally closed and they are seeking converts, or because their minds are open and they genuinely want to understand other viewpoints. I think the people who hang in GQ are more than capable of holding their own in any serious debate - I’m sure that the mods and admins are aware of that - let’s not give them a reason to cry “censorship” when facts and logic will defeat them every time. 
Andros, there are recognized general differences in certain physical traits among races. The Scientific American article that I linked above shows that inference of height from tibia length must take into account the three racial stocks. The University of Virginia link shows the variation in allele frequency among the three. The New England Skeptical Society article shows how a measured and reasonable treatment of race, while recognizing that there are indeed genetic differences, can demonstrate that these differences are trivial in relation to intelligence. It is the same basic argument that I would have used against the OP.
John, you’re probably right, and I concede your excellent points. Perhaps when the Teeming Millions further evolve… In the meantime, shall we debate quartz?
Precisely. It is almost like the medieval church saying that people can’t disuss such things as planets orbiting the sun, for fear that their faith might be shaken. We have nothing to fear from racists, and our facts and logic would defeat them for God and everybody to see. Instead, God and everybody are seeing that we’re too timid to discuss it.
Lib, with all due respect to you (and I’m incredibly aware of just how patronising that phrase must sound), please do not ever quote me when trying to endorse your own - highly specific - theological/spiritual /philisophical viewpoints.
It’s a pretty well known fact that I am an atheist; it’s also a pretty well known fact that I don’t discriminate at all when asking questions relating to religion. I ask people like Polycarp and Duck Duck Goose their opinions and their interpretations of religions because I know that I will get an honest answer from them even if it doesn’t accord with the dogma of their religions.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again - the religious observant people I’ve known in my lifetime who have had the most effect upon me are not those people who have “told” their faith (whether that be Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism Buddhism, whatever), they are the peolpe who have LIVED their faith; and the one observationation this particular atheirst has made is that those who live their faith don’t feel any need to judge others : they leave judgement to whojmever or whatever they believe to be “the ultimate” or “the divine”.
Quite clearly, the whole issue of religion is regarded so differently in my nation than it is in the US that the conversation is one of “apples and oranges”".
I cannot imagine living in a nation in which it’s unacceptable to celebrate your religious/racial heritage. Even though I’m an athiest, I think it’s great that my children get exposed to different belief systems and celebrate them all without judging them. I LOVE the fact that my children know - and truly understand - the traditions of Passover, and Ramadan, and Easter. I LOVE the fact that they even know the date of Chinese New Year.
Isn’t this exactly the freedom for which all our ancestors fought (grandchild of person buried at the Somme speaking here)?
Lib, I’m never gonna believe in your “god” as you perceive that being; but I’d like you to take a trip down memory lane.
Do you remember Lib, when your grandchild died? I’m sure that you do. I’m inconsequential to you on this messageboard Lib, but I remember it - and so do my children. Do you even remember that at the time we told you a star had been named for your grandbaby? My kids remember that moment when that star got dedicated - why don’t you?
Perhaps you do have to become a total atheist in order to discuss with those who still hold faith why they do so. I was baptised in the RCC, confirmed in the CoE, have belonged to just about any and every church since then and I still don’t believe Lib. I sometimes envy people who do believe. There’s stillness and a peace which exists in cathedrals which cannot be replicated - and oddly enough, I live in a city which overflows with cathedrals and have been challenged in none. I’ve never - EVER - been asked to justify my presence in a house of God (no matter what particular religion that temple denotes) - the day I’m asked to do so, I’ll prolly fling 4-letter words at the person in charge of such them just why they are such bad examples of their own faith.
I go to cathedrals when I need absolute stillness - I find it there. Perhaps I am exploiting God when I do so, but I kind of figure that if any such being as “god” exists, then he isn’t going to get too pissed off about my using his house as a sanctuary.
If he IS going to be the Old Tesament, spiteful God, then I will oppose his law just as much as I would oppose the “rules” of any other dictator.
And Lib, I’ve hijacked your Pit thread out of recognition, but I’d still like a cite for the fact that people of faith cannot discuss their religion…