Flint
Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Dean:
You need to at least make an effort. Here's a Q&A for you that might get you started.
Q: Are there systematic, identifiable genetic differences between races?
A: Yes, given a good deal of blending. But a geneticist given samples taken from inner-city blacks and affluent white suburbians could easily, consistently tell the difference.
Q: Do these systematic differences correlate with IQ test scores and demonstrated capacity to assimilate into the national culture?
A: Yes, they do. No question about it.
Q: Might these differences in genetics *explain* the differences in test scores and assimilation?
A: Yes, there's a very good chance of this.
Q: Should there be ANY social policies which recognize these differences?
A: Good question. We have had affirmative action policies for decades, which are based directly on these differences.
Q: Are these policies therefore racist?
A: No question about it. Their goal is to *correct for* racism, and you can't target racism without being racist. These policies are *deliberately discriminatory*.
Q: Aren't racially discriminatory laws a bad idea?
A: This seems to depend on intent and locution. If a law claims the intent of assisting group A, it's a good law. If the law claims the intent of punishing group B, it's a bad law. Even if the actual legal requirements are identical!
Q: So should we have ANY laws that draw racial distinctions in order to grant or deny privileges along racial lines?
A: Depends on who you are. Ghost says no, the law should be color-blind. You seem to say yes, *provided* the goal has "good intent".
Personally, I gotta admit Ghost has a point here. Either we legislate racial differences or we don't. The notion that legislation benefiting race A by handicapping group B is "not racist" is prima facie false.
What you are doing is championing "good racism" so avidly that someone who advocates no racism becomes a racist by comparison.
|
