quote:Originally posted by steven: ... Further, I think that he has such a shallow depth of knowledge on the subject because he, like probably nearly all Europeans, simply assumes that white Europeans are the smartest race, period. Based on where he grew up, I suppose I can see how such assumptions, wrong as they are, can exist.
Making assumptions sure seems like a European thing.
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... American whites know that superficial generalizations about race are nearly always totally useless and incorrect. Our media, as well as the people ourselves ...
Stupid generalizations! Why do they make so many generalizations! Angry! Hulk smash!
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So*, judging by the way this thread has devolved. The answer to the question I originally asked in the title would appear to be "Yes".
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, reading comprehension must not have been a part of the SAT when you took it, if you truly did score in the top 1%.
Here's a summary for you.
1) Blayne claimed that racism is inherently irrational. 2) KOM stated that it is not inherently irrational, as there are hypothetical worlds in which racism is quite rational. 3) Blayne asks for an example of such a hypothetical world. 4) KOM suggests a hypothetical world in which skin color correlates to IQ. 5) You then jump on KOM for claiming that skin color correlates to IQ. 6) Several times people try and tell you that you've misunderstood KOM. 7) You continue to attack KOM for claiming something he never did. 8) Xavier gets to work on Monday after a long weekend and simply must post because someone is wrong on the internet.
Edit:
9) Xavier goes and reads sakeriver later that morning, and laughs when he finds steven's post about this thread there.
posted
Steven, pretend that KoM was talking about a twilight zone episode where the green people were all smarter than the purple people. That intelligence was connected to the green gene. In such an imaginary, hyporthetical world, racism (believing that green people are smarter) would not be illogical.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"There are many possible worlds in which racism is quite logical and founded on strong empirical evidence...."
You're building this argument on a foundation of sand, steven. As I very much suspect others will note on the next page.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, I ask you, did you know about the data refuting the racial IQ studies or not?
Well yes. As others have noted, I was making the rather anodyne point that racism is not 'by definition' illogical, as Blayne was claiming. All I objected to was the argument 'by definition'; I'm trying to help Blayne's arguing skills. The definition of 'racism' does not include 'inherently illogical', although a modern dictionary would likely call it outmoded or disproved. But in any case arguing from the dictionary does not help anyone's cause.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, in fairness to Blayne, he was getting at the logic underlying the most popular and traditional definitions of particular examples of human races. I think there'd be a relatively good argument saying that such races are defined illogically.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you can strike an easy middle ground and say that modern racism, when not springing from pure ignorance, is largely based on false assumptions and a poor application of logical thinking. If one has enough information about race and other races, the logical basis for racism begins to evaporate.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see that you're not going to admit to any mistakes. Arguing with someone whose premises are mistaken is rarely productive, so good day to you, sir.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, dude, you're looking really silly here. You went nuts on KoM for things, it turned out, he had never said at all in the first place, and now you're suggesting that because he didn't contradict the argument he didn't make after he made it, he didn't know about it at all until you mentioned it?
posted
I'm bumping this because I'm curious to see whether Steven is man enough to admit he made a mistake.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I'm bumping this because I'm curious to see whether Steven is man enough to admit he made a mistake.
I make mistakes all the time. So what?
I admit, I have kind of a knee-jerk reaction when people start talking about race and IQ. I also don't really have a big problem with my own knee-jerk reaction. It is what it is. Most white people don't grow up with the same exposure to black people as me. I have a lot more direct experience. I feel that it's my place to bring that experience to bear at the appropriate time. Sometimes I might jump the gun, but I still think there were some people who read the thread who learned something new when I posted, and that's so much more important than scoring points off you.
In other words, I don't care if I win. That's the difference between me and some others. I care more about finding and sharing core truth(s), if such a thing exists. Many others are so stuck in their own patterns of belief or skepticism that they lose focus on the goal of finding the truth. He who seeks diligently is more likely to find.
It isn't about winning arguments, or at least not first and foremost. Yes, I like to debate, but I'm always hoping that my opponents will throw some facts at me that I haven't run across. That's why I debate, I think. Also good is when I can throw some new-to-them facts back at them.\
You have taught me very little, except that you hate religious people, and love video games. Wow. I mean, that's fine and all, but there's more to life than page after page of abusing kateboots, et al, and hours upon hours of Command and Conquer, etc. Not that I don't indulge in the occasional bit of religion-bashing or gaming. They have their place. You, however, waste your life with them. It's your prerogative.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, even the racist, red herring throwing Malanthop will just sit back and watch this one. Political Correctness sucks doesn't it? Political correctness destroys reality based communication. Tucson may as well be considered racist for saying Seattle has a lot of rain because everyone knows, it rains in Tucson as well. Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Far be it from me to say that KoM is likeable, but steven, dude...a 'dang, my bad. sorry about that' is what's called for here, not a rant about how he's a jerk.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, welcome to your initiation. King of Men named himself as such for complete irony. His name makes me smile for it's ironic value and he does have a religion free perspective. I have enjoyed my interactions with him.
No one here will discuss racial IQ data. If they will, they will suggest the test is racially biased. You are yet to find the boundaries of appropriate discussion. Skin color is undeniable but when it comes to differences between races, it is only appropriate to point out positive differences.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Thank you for leading me to research more of the thread. While I stand firm when it comes to realistic data in regards to minorities, I don't have an axe to grind with any race. In the future I will look further into the conversation before interjecting. Sorry for my assumption,...I can spot an ant-semite when one arises.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Did you, or didn't you, utterly misunderstand what I was saying?
I didn't even read any of the previous page at all, to be honest. I don't care, either. The studies I prevented are extremely relevant to the topic, and clearly noone had mentioned them. I think you're missing my point, though. I don't care who wins this. Win it if you want. You're obscuring the facts by focusing on winning, but I'm not that motivated to stop you. I care about presenting useful facts when they haven't been previously presented. That is my ultimate goal here, to learn and reveal truth.
Let's assume that you actually were aware of the studies I linked to. It looked like you were going to go through post after post to even get around to mentioning them, and I saw no reason for a long, drawn-out discussion. You cannot convince people. You can present facts, and let them figure it out for themselves. That's my thought, anyway. Or, to put it another way, I don't have the patience to teach people what to do with facts. Perhaps you do. Great, but the people here are, or should be, smart enough to figure it out themselves, once presented with the facts. If they are not, they do not deserve help, in my view. Or, to put it another way, I won't be giving it. I suck at such, anyway.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Steven, you are still misunderstanding what I was doing, possibly deliberately. I was not discussing race and IQ issues, in which case your studies would have been relevant. I was discussing hypotheticals, logical versus empirical possibility, and what it means to be true "by definition".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't even read any of the previous page at all, to be honest. I don't care, either. The studies I prevented are extremely relevant to the topic, and clearly noone had mentioned them. I think you're missing my point, though. I don't care who wins this. Win it if you want. You're obscuring the facts by focusing on winning, but I'm not that motivated to stop you. I care about presenting useful facts when they haven't been previously presented. That is my ultimate goal here, to learn and reveal truth.
I don't believe you. Of course you wanted to win. When you thought you were winning, you went elsewhere and crowed about it, remember? Or did you think that wasn't noticed? If your motivation was so much to bring knowledge to the participants in the thread aside from KoM, it's likely you would've at least noticed when so many people were saying, "Hey, steven, you've got things wrong, slow down!"
Of course you also don't get credit for not being concerned with stopping KoM, since you don't have that ability at all anyway. I might as well get credit for not focusing on being upset I can't stop it from raining today.
quote:Great, but the people here are, or should be, smart enough to figure it out themselves, once presented with the facts.
Here's a fact: KoM did not say what you initially objected to, and thus all of your later posts that were built on the foundation of objecting to what he said were fundamentally flawed in a big way. Another fact is that now, instead of recognizing this mistake, you're working hard to build a framework where it wasn't really a mistake at all, because it was never a priority of yours to respond to what is actually said, and you're doing a public service.
You're not doing a public service. You're covering your own behind, and I'm not even sure you know it, man.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem here is a confusion over the central irrationality of racism. The central problem of racism is not that races need to be statistically equal. Rather, the central problem of racism is when we take generalities about a race and apply them to individual members of that race.
I'll use Middle Earth as an example, since it will probably be less offensive. (Apologies in advance to any Elves or Hobbits on this forum.) In Middle Earth, it was statistically true that Hobbits were less adventurous than Elves. Making such a claim would not be irrational. However, it would be irrational to then flatly assume that Frodo is not adventurous because he's a Hobbit. That, applying the generality of a race to an individual, is the fundamental irrationality of racism.
So, I'd say it doesn't matter that much if one race is found to be statistically better at IQ tests than another race. The important thing is that we don't then take that statistic and start assuming that person X or person Y is less smart because of their race.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing, steven, is that you clearly do care enough about how you look in this thread to create an entirely different post hoc rationalization for your participation.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think the problem here is a confusion over the central irrationality of racism. The central problem of racism is not that races need to be statistically equal. Rather, the central problem of racism is when we take generalities about a race and apply them to individual members of that race.
No, Tres, the problem is that generalities about people only appear valid because they are linked to people's races. There are many generalities about people not tied to their appearance, and so they go unnoticed, or ascribed to causes other than inheritance. Racism is born out of the most classic misappropriation of science.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
