So What's Wrong With Racism?

[AllieBaba]

What irritates me is the fact that so many libs who claim that all conservatives are racist are racist themselves.

I'm thinking on one in particular (not on this board) who claimed that Obama's church, which has a mission statement that rattles on about black this and black that, was justified in having racist doctrine, and that she wouldn't believe it was really racist based just on the church's mission statement.

 

[Helios]

Does this topic actually exist? I mean, is this what people are spending their time talking about?

 

[jillian]

Does this topic actually exist? I mean, is this what people are spending their time talking about?

Actually, these topics are here because we have a neo-nazi on the board who likes race baiting. He posts all kinds of garbage. So he got his very own subtopic on the board. That way his stuff doesn't overrun everything else. You know, same as conspiracy theories.

 

[Helios]

Actually, these topics are here because we have a neo-nazi on the board who likes race baiting. He posts all kinds of garbage. So he got his very own subtopic on the board. That way his stuff doesn't overrun everything else. You know, same as conspiracy theories.

Hmm... I suppose they are "theories." Just like evolution is a theory. It's just a matter of how adeptly you patriotic automatons can continue to deny undeniable evidence. Respond to specific evidence, instead of your sweeping statements against these "theories."

 

[jillian]

Hmm... I suppose they are "theories." Just like evolution is a theory. It's just a matter of how adeptly you patriotic automatons can continue to deny undeniable evidence. Respond to specific evidence, instead of your sweeping statements against these "theories."

I'd suggest that you haven't a clue what my politics are, so the whole "patriotic automaton" thing... might want to can it if you expect any civil interaction from me.

 

[LOki]

Hmm... I suppose they are "theories." Just like evolution is a theory.

As it turns out Helios, the explanation of the diversity of species by evolution is, in fact, a theory.

It's just a matter of how adeptly you patriotic automatons can continue to deny undeniable evidence. Respond to specific evidence, instead of your sweeping statements against these "theories."

Well Helios, if it were not for the evidence, we'd be calling it the hypothesis of evolution rather than the theory of evolution. No one minds you picking a bit of a fight; that's what places like this are for--why don't go and be a fight-picking dumbfuck somewhere else? :2thup:

 

[Helios]

As it turns out Helios, the explanation of the diversity of species by evolution is, in fact, a theory.

Well Helios, if it were not for the evidence, we'd be calling it the hypothesis of evolution rather than the theory of evolution. No one minds you picking a bit of a fight; that's what places like this are for--why don't go and be a fight-picking dumbfuck somewhere else? :2thup:

No need to stoop to proletarian cursing Loki, I was just stating my opinion, and my opinion on others' opinions. I know it's fading out of fashion, but we do still have freedom of speech, right?

 

[William Joyce]

Brilliant essay taking Ayn Rand down, by one for whom she was an intellectual hero:

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/barnyard.htm

To be fair, I must admit that in the old days we lacked much of the data necessary to construct more-heuristic concepts of race. Now, however, J. Philippe Rushton and other investigators have given us the key. [6] They have demonstrated a statistically robust clustering of traits characteristic of people who, by ancestry, are members of one or another of the great human racial groups — traits such as stature, timbre of voice, and musculature; onset of puberty, subsequent sex drive, and fecundity; cognitive development and creative gifts; hormone-influenced qualities such as impulsiveness, excitability, extroversion, and physical activeness; incidence of certain diseases; brain size; and on and on. Although we may never find an individual who expresses all the characteristic traits of his race, especially if he is of mixed blood, we can now conceive of a "typical Negro" or "typical Caucasian," and predict with a high degree of confidence how successfully (by our lights) a group of such people will live among themselves and interact with others. We have the basis for a concept we can reliably use for predictive, sociological, and prudential purposes.

Ayn Rand was not her real name. She was in fact Alicia Rosenberg, and yes, she was a Jew. Why else would jillian be excited? Certainly not because of her extreme libertarian/objectivist postion, which goes directly against the liberal tenets favored by Democrats.

 

[Helios]

Dear Bigot. The differentiations between human etho-cultures is the same as the differentiations between an Indian Tiger and a White Tiger. There are no different races of human. There is the HUMAN race. That's it.

Members of different races cannot successfully procreate. That's kind of a determining factor. And despite what your daddy told you, blacks can have kids with whites. And whites can have kids with Asians. And Asians can have kids with Hispanics. So, there goes that whole argument you have going on. Carry on, citizen.

 

[jillian]

Brilliant essay taking Ayn Rand down, by one for whom she was an intellectual hero:

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/barnyard.htm

To be fair, I must admit that in the old days we lacked much of the data necessary to construct more-heuristic concepts of race. Now, however, J. Philippe Rushton and other investigators have given us the key. [6] They have demonstrated a statistically robust clustering of traits characteristic of people who, by ancestry, are members of one or another of the great human racial groups — traits such as stature, timbre of voice, and musculature; onset of puberty, subsequent sex drive, and fecundity; cognitive development and creative gifts; hormone-influenced qualities such as impulsiveness, excitability, extroversion, and physical activeness; incidence of certain diseases; brain size; and on and on. Although we may never find an individual who expresses all the characteristic traits of his race, especially if he is of mixed blood, we can now conceive of a "typical Negro" or "typical Caucasian," and predict with a high degree of confidence how successfully (by our lights) a group of such people will live among themselves and interact with others. We have the basis for a concept we can reliably use for predictive, sociological, and prudential purposes.

Ayn Rand was not her real name. She was in fact Alicia Rosenberg, and yes, she was a Jew. Why else would jillian be excited? Certainly not because of her extreme libertarian/objectivist postion, which goes directly against the liberal tenets favored by Democrats.

Ayn Rand was Jewish? Didn't know that. Brilliant books, flawed life concepts. But if you're going to attempt to give her real name, it was Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Алиса Зиновьевна

Розенбау&#1084.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

I know one jew name is pretty much the same as any other to you, same as one black person looks the same as any other to you.

Reminds me of an old joke:

man goes to a bar and sits down next to the man sitting at the counter. they get to talking. it comes up in the course of conversation that the man at the counter is jewish. so the second man says "you know, I really have issues with you jews. It wasn't bad enough you killed Christ. It wasn't bad enough that you run everything. But... the worst thing you did was sink the Titanic.

The man at the bar says, but an iceberg sank the Titanic.

The second man says "Iceberg... Goldberg... it's all the same".

 

[William Joyce]

Yes, correct you are on Ayn Rand's real name. I have heard that acolyte Nathaniel Branden, also Jewish, took the name "Branden" as an homage to Rand, as in "ben Rand" or "son of Rand". That may or may not be true but sounds tantalizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Branden

Here's a great joke.

Two men are sitting outside a church begging for money. One sits close to the church door and holds only a sign saying "Give me money." The other sits farther down, and has a sign with a Christian cross on it.

As the churchgoers exit, they see the first beggar and frown. Upon seeing the second, they smile and shower him with money.

After observing this, the priest comes out. He speaks to the first beggar and says, "You know, you might do better if you showed a cross, like him over there."

The first beggar turns to the second and says, "Moishe, can you believe this guy, telling us how to run our business?"

 

[Gunny]

Dear Bigot. The differentiations between human etho-cultures is the same as the differentiations between an Indian Tiger and a White Tiger. There are no different races of human. There is the HUMAN race. That's it.

Members of different races cannot successfully procreate. That's kind of a determining factor. And despite what your daddy told you, blacks can have kids with whites. And whites can have kids with Asians. And Asians can have kids with Hispanics. So, there goes that whole argument you have going on. Carry on, citizen.

Where, pray tell, did you get the notion that members of different races cannot procreate?

Race does not equate to species.

 

[Helios]

Where, pray tell, did you get the notion that members of different races cannot procreate?

Race does not equate to species.

Salve amicus, I believe race to equate to species. There are a couple of different definitions of race in the dictionary, and both of our points of view are expressed. You subscribe to definitions #1-#5, while I believe in #6, #8 and #9. Hence the misunderstanding.


This is what the dictionary has to say:

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology.
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.
–adjective
11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.

 

[LOki]

Brilliant essay taking Ayn Rand down, by one for whom she was an intellectual hero:

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/barnyard.htm

To be fair, I must admit that in the old days we lacked much of the data necessary to construct more-heuristic concepts of race. Now, however, J. Philippe Rushton and other investigators have given us the key. [6] They have demonstrated a statistically robust clustering of traits characteristic of people who, by ancestry, are members of one or another of the great human racial groups — traits such as stature, timbre of voice, and musculature; onset of puberty, subsequent sex drive, and fecundity; cognitive development and creative gifts; hormone-influenced qualities such as impulsiveness, excitability, extroversion, and physical activeness; incidence of certain diseases; brain size; and on and on. Although we may never find an individual who expresses all the characteristic traits of his race, especially if he is of mixed blood, we can now conceive of a "typical Negro" or "typical Caucasian," and predict with a high degree of confidence how successfully (by our lights) a group of such people will live among themselves and interact with others. We have the basis for a concept we can reliably use for predictive, sociological, and prudential purposes.

Ayn Rand was not her real name. She was in fact Alicia Rosenberg, and yes, she was a Jew. Why else would jillian be excited? Certainly not because of her extreme libertarian/objectivist postion, which goes directly against the liberal tenets favored by Democrats.

He fails. No one argues that there are genetic differences between the races, and Strakon simply argues this case. He then goes on a question begging mission of value assignments to traits that have not been genetically mapped, only to refute himself by bringing up "the Eddie Willers Question."

Racism claims that the content of a man's mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man's convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical forces beyond his control.

 

[William Joyce]

No one argues that there are genetic differences between the races, and Strakon simply argues this case.

Huh? Plenty of folks argue this, me among them. Craig Ventner by now admits this (though denies importance). Actually, there isn't really a scientific argument that there aren't genetic differences among races --- there are. The argument is over how much influence this has. The weight of the evidence? A LOT.

 

[Gunny]

Salve amicus, I believe race to equate to species. There are a couple of different definitions of race in the dictionary, and both of our points of view are expressed. You subscribe to definitions #1-#5, while I believe in #6, #8 and #9. Hence the misunderstanding.


This is what the dictionary has to say:

The misunderstanding is all yours. What you "believe" does not make it fact.

Race:

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.

www.dictionary.com

 

[Helios]

The misunderstanding is all yours. What you "believe" does not make it fact.

Nor does what you believe make it fact.

 

[Gunny]

Nor does what you believe make it fact.

Why I whipped out the dictionary on you.

 

[Gunny]

Nor does what you believe make it fact.

But let's cut to the chase here. Your argument is that you equate race with species; therefore, race is not a dividing factor among humans.

I provided you with a dictionary definition of "race" which clearly indicates such a division exists academically.

Regardless that, few if any people besides you (since you're the first I've ever heard make such an argument) believe race does not exist as a dividing/identifiying qualifier.

Understand, I am NOT saying that racial superiority/inferiority is real, only that racial difference is. There is a clear difference between race and racism.

 

[Helios]

But let's cut to the chase here. Your argument is that you equate race with species; therefore, race is not a dividing factor among humans.

I provided you with a dictionary definition of "race" which clearly indicates such a division exists academically.

Regardless that, few if any people besides you (since you're the first I've ever heard make such an argument) believe race does not exist as a dividing/identifiying qualifier.

Understand, I am NOT saying that racial superiority/inferiority is real, only that racial difference is. There is a clear difference between race and racism.

I believe there are genetic subdivisions according to ethnic groups/shared ancestry, and that there are dividing factors between ethnic groups. But I believe "race" to be too strong a word for the things that divide us. Race speaks of deeply rooted division, while I believe only in superficial divisions. For example, if a Pacific Islander was raised in Switzerland from birth, he would not identify himself as a Pacific Islander who grew up in Switzerland. He would identify himself as Swiss.

I try to look beyond all invented divisions, in the interest of entertaining some semblance of the truth.