RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (9) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 >   
  Topic: A Modest Proposal< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,03:32   

I don't ski anymore and I long ago gave up any thoughts of getting on anything with only two wheels.  Besides, my leather jacket hasn't fit in years.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,04:22   

Skeptic,

I am glad to find you suitably averse to shark jumpage!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,07:15   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 02 2006,19:06)
 
Quote (Ved @ Aug. 02 2006,16:03)
Well you sure got us pegged. I for one am so committed to my Liberalism that I'm compelled to take your caricatures at face value and incorporate them into my belief system.

Better start reading Foucault and move to an all-white neighborhood! You've got a lot of catching up to do!

(Better do it quick, Paley might post another one of his photos of sweaty, oily, half-naked boxers.)

Eh, why read faux Coult when we have the real thing currently pumping out books?

Seriously though, I'd never heard of Foucault till I got here. Chalk that up to my lack of higher education, I suppose. No philosophy courses for me...

Does my playing in a black metal band (for lack of better term) make up in any way for my lack of knowledge of the dude? I've been told we play the evillest Prague rock ever!

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,08:58   

Mutt and Jeff:
 
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot.

But you don't know? Tsk-tsk....should keep up with your molecular biology. C. Wu claims that at least 5 genes are needed for a molecular phylogeny. As for what particular analysis is proper, might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?

 
Quote
The full quote from the book, and the context it's in, CLEARLY (to anyone with the reading comprehension of a five year old) makes the point that the author is talking about molecular confirmation of migratory and evolutionary models supported by fossil evidence, NOT racial superiority. More significant genetic difference does not mean that one is "superior" to the other, unless one defines the environment in which that "superiority" is expressed very rigourously. Also, the size of that difference (i.e. its overall significance) has to be addressed, which I notice you conveniently ignore.

Louis, remove the beam from thine own eye. Neither Sailer nor I are interested in ranking the inherent "worth" of racial groups, and nothing we've said could have made a rational person think otherwise. What I did say -- and what you inadvertently confirmed -- was that humans can be grouped objectively into "races", and that liberals try to deny this because they're afraid of that this will lead to discoveries of racial differences in mental ability. If you guys would perform the molecular work yourselves instead of diddling black men's willies on the public dime, you would realise what the rest of the world knows: that different races exist and can be studied to everyone's benefit. I've already mentioned several applications, and that's just the tip o' the iceberg.
Quote
You can quote mine and blather all you like, but your claims don't stack up. Your strawmen aside NOBODY is denying that genetic profiling based on geographical distribution is a useful tool. NOBODY is denying that the genetic differences between human groups (or races if you like, here it has some validity at least) have demonstrable effects (epidemiology etc etc). These racial genetic differences are useful because there hasn't been complete mixing of the human genome. And this STILL misses the KEY POINT of the limitation of these uses that the genetic differences WITHIN any two races you choose are greater than the genetic differences between those same two races. That is part of the limitation of the usefulness of these differences. The other being, of course, that most of the usefulness of these differences is due to certain key markers (e.g. the marker for Tay-Sachs disease or sickle cell anemia in certain racial populations).

But many, if not most, liberals do claim that the races are unclassifiable "abstractions". Of course, this claim doesn't even make sense on a Darwinian level: Erasmus himself would have predicted a branching tree for human subgroups, because a nested hierarchy results from a common ancestor splitting into multiple descendents. But liberals, who worship Comrade Darwin and racial categories when it's time to wreck Christianity or empty the white man's wallet, suddenly become creationists on the Race Issue. They confuse gene segregation with phylogeny, compare single genes, and other bad stuff.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,09:10   

Quote
But many, if not most, liberals do claim that the races are unclassifiable "abstractions". Of course, this claim doesn't even make sense on a Darwinian level: Erasmus himself would have predicted a branching tree for human subgroups, because a nested hierarchy results from a common ancestor splitting into multiple descendents. But liberals, who worship Comrade Darwin and racial categories when it's time to wreck Christianity or empty the white man's wallet, suddenly become creationists on the Race Issue.

Not atypically, this accusation is partially correct, and partially misleading. Yes, there are genetic differences among people. Yes, some of these genetic differences are associated with clear enough visual cues (and geographical ancestry) to serve as useful differentiators between genetically distinct groups. Sometimes, this is very helpful (for example in making some medical diagnoses or therapies). I doubt even a "Ghost liberal" (not a real creature, but a simplistic enough caricature for us to grasp) would claim that, by and large black people aren't visibly blacker than white people.

So the question here is, should these systemic genetic groupings translate into legal or political distinctions? Should identifiable phylogenetic groups be denied civil rights? If so, which rights? Should we assume that there is One True God, who regards these groups with differing degrees of favor? Should we use these groupings as a basis for setting discriminatory immigration quotas, or designing different educational curricula, or designating seating locations on buses?

Is the "liberal" determination to *pretend* that these separate groups are physiologically similar enough to be treated as legal and political equals, in practice perverse and wrongheaded because the groups are so physically different? Would a "separate and not equal" dual (or more) political and legal system (including different legal rights, different access to services, different educations, different hiring and training opportunities, ad nauseum) be a BETTER FIT considering these genuine genetic groupings?

Clearly, Ghost thinks so, and the hated liberals want to go on pretending they're all human.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,09:35   

Flint:
Quote
Is the "liberal" determination to *pretend* that these separate groups are physiologically similar enough to be treated as legal and political equals, in practice perverse and wrongheaded because the groups are so physically different? Would a "separate and not equal" dual (or more) political and legal system (including different legal rights, different access to services, different educations, different hiring and training opportunities, ad nauseum) be a BETTER FIT considering these genuine genetic groupings?

Clearly, Ghost thinks so, and the hated liberals want to go on pretending they're all human.


Flint, I warned you about lying about my politics. You know #### well that I believe in equal civil rights for all American citizens, and that I despise any form of "race law". The existence of racial categories in no way implies different treatment under the law, and only an imbecile would believe otherwise. What's funny about your smear campaign is that you, not I, once opined that "Black people wreck every nation they become part of" (This quote may not be exact, but it is not a misrepresentation of what you said). You were the one who told anecdotes about black employees not working when the boss's back was turned. So get off your high horse and address my arguments.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,10:13   

Ghost:

Quote
The existence of racial categories in no way implies different treatment under the law, and only an imbecile would believe otherwise.

Uh, I trust you understand that varying immigration quotas are precisely "different treatment under the law." Perhaps I misunderstood you? You SEEMED to be saying you favored this form of legal discrimination.

Quote
You were the one who told anecdotes about black employees not working when the boss's back was turned.

Yes, those stories were true. But perhaps you and I would draw different conclusions from them. My question is, would any visibly distinct group with the history blacks have in the US, right up to the present day, behave differently? Differently how? How much of this spite-the-man mentality is racial, how much is cultural or historical, how much is due to (problematic) congenital stupidity?

Anyway, I'm trying to address your arguments, even if you don't like how they look reflected back at you. I've agreed that there are genetic differences. I agreed that we can make these groupings objectively (that is, double-blind processes would produce them). I even agreed that recognizing these groupings is occasionally critical, even life-saving. What are you asking for now?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,11:00   

Gop--I asked this:  
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot.


Notice that I asked you to be specific. You reply:  
Quote
might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?


Since you asked what my prediction is, I'll tell you straightaway-- My predictions are these:
1. You're going to have to work much harder than this, GoP. I realize that you have a great deal of time on your hands and that you have a computer at your local library that you can use, but in order to do what I asked, you're going to have to be capable of a bit more than spewing out jargon like an glossolalic idiot savant.

2. I predict that if I hand **you** a vial of blood from three of the subjects I mentioned (Cossack, Pakistani, and Bahian) you will not be able to tell me anything, personally, about the "race" of the subjects in a double-blind test.

This would be for several reasons, chief among them (A)that you, personally, would be absolutely lost as to the details of extraction, amplification and comparison, etc.
(B) The groups I mentioned don't classify as easily as you blithely assume, O Google scholar. As you described above, in your google-derived delusion, you assume that you're going to be able to take the entire MtDna sequence from each sample, "construct a phylogenetic tree" from that sample..(details?) and then compare that to a database of Y-chromosome haplogroups and arrive at a match that fits to within p<.001...

What exactly will this tell me about race? It will match for continent-wide geographic origins, as Louis noted earlier. It is also in fact, a forced-fit comparison, since you are suggesting only that I look for the best match between Mt-Dna and YCh Trees (using what programs and markers? Specifics!!;). Let's take the Cossack case..I will be able to tell *what* about the "race" of the individual?  

Now, O Google Scholar, I want you to use the very best Mt and Y databases available and tell me...what are the probabilities that you will be wrong in your phylogenetic matches concerning the "Race" of each of the three subjects I mentioned? Be specific and cite how you are calculating these probabilities. Cite all relevant details, GoP, don't just google and give me broad generalities. I predicted you'd have to work harder than you have, GoP, and I also predict that you will fail in being specific about those three particular groups and hypothetical blind samples.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,11:18   

GoP says :
Quote
I despise any form of "race law".


But you just suggested, not long ago, laws determining who should be allowed in the US based on "race" and geographic origins, GoP...which is it?

Is it that you prescribe racial profiling for *entrance * and US citizenship?...why, yes, you did.

But once IN, they should be exempt from "race law?"

Ah, the scent of "conservative" hypocrisy once again wafts from the malodorous GoP

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,17:33   

Louis, you know it's Shark Week on Discovery.  Those big suckers scare the bee-jeesus out of me.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2006,20:57   

Hey Skeptic;

did you know that I used to work with those big suckers that scare the bejesus out of you?

yup.

In fact it's possible that they showed vids of the very sharks i used to work with, and the researchers too.  If they showed any footage from Monterey, or near Santa Cruz, or from the Farallon Islands, that would have been the sharks I worked with.  If they showed Sean Van Sommeran at all (they do about every other shark week), or Bernie Lebouff, or Pete Klimly, or Greg Cailliet, those were the guys I used to work with.  Likely they spent most of the time showing white shark footage from South Africa though.

Now, here's an analogy for you:

based on your thread on evolutionary theory, I expect you will elucidate a theory on white shark migration and hunting behaviors that far exceeds my pathetic level of detail, having only studied the critters for 4 years.  Tell me how it's done, son.

or, if you were actually interested in Carcharadon carcharias, you could actually ask questions; that would be new and unexpected.

and uh, *ugh*, i guess i should apologize to gawp for going so off topic on his tightly woven thread...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,00:22   

Skeptic,

Then surely what better way to avoid those big scary suckers than by jumping a tankful on a large motorbike? Or at least jumping a fake one used as a sign (if I remember my Happy Days correctly) on a large motorbike whilst wearing a newly resized leather jacket and some sun glasses and saying "Eyyyyyyyyyyyy".

The girls would love it. You jump that shark Skeptic!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,03:10   

Ichy, the nearest I've come is by accidentally sitting on the back of a ten foot bull shark of the south coast of Jamaica.  I never intend to be any closer and my detailed knowledge of whites runs out where Discovery channel leaves off.  Sorry to disappoint you.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,05:35   

Funny that the subject of shark-jumping came up, as it's time to reply to the Ninester....
 
Quote
Since you asked what my prediction is, I'll tell you straightaway-- My predictions are these:
1. You're going to have to work much harder than this, GoP. I realize that you have a great deal of time on your hands and that you have a computer at your local library that you can use, but in order to do what I asked, you're going to have to be capable of a bit more than spewing out jargon like an glossolalic idiot savant.

Hmmmm....doesn't sound like a very scienmetifical prediction to me, but I'll let my "betters" make that call. By the way, Hoss, I think the concept yer groping for is "Williams Syndrome". You should try a library every once in a while, they really improve your skills.  :D  :D
 
Quote
2. I predict that if I hand **you** a vial of blood from three of the subjects I mentioned (Cossack, Pakistani, and Bahian) you will not be able to tell me anything, personally, about the "race" of the subjects in a double-blind test.

Oh dear, you're confusing molecualr phylogenies with DNA profiling. And oh yeah, racial clines do not refute racial classification any more than the concept of "ring species" and "mules" refutes the biological concept of species. Nice try, though.
 
Quote
This would be for several reasons, chief among them (A)that you, personally, would be absolutely lost as to the details of extraction, amplification and comparison, etc.
(B) The groups I mentioned don't classify as easily as you blithely assume, O Google scholar. As you described above, in your google-derived delusion, you assume that you're going to be able to take the entire MtDna sequence from each sample, "construct a phylogenetic tree" from that sample..(details?) and then compare that to a database of Y-chromosome haplogroups and arrive at a match that fits to within p<.001...

Ummmm Nine, molecular phylogenies can't be constructed from a single individual, and even one built on three subjects will get you tossed headfirst from scientific conferences. For details, consult the scientific literature....
 
Quote
What exactly will this tell me about race? It will match for continent-wide geographic origins, as Louis noted earlier. It is also in fact, a forced-fit comparison, since you are suggesting only that I look for the best match between Mt-Dna and YCh Trees (using what programs and markers? Specifics!!. Let's take the Cossack case..I will be able to tell *what* about the "race" of the individual?  

Wow, guys, can anyone get Brazeau or somebody to help this guy out? He's really scuffling here. But I'll supply a couple of references later to get him started....
 
Quote
Now, O Google Scholar, I want you to use the very best Mt and Y databases available and tell me...what are the probabilities that you will be wrong in your phylogenetic matches concerning the "Race" of each of the three subjects I mentioned? Be specific and cite how you are calculating these probabilities. Cite all relevant details, GoP, don't just google and give me broad generalities. I predicted you'd have to work harder than you have, GoP, and I also predict that you will fail in being specific about those three particular groups and hypothetical blind samples.

If you're wondering why I'm being so flippant, it's because you keep saying stupid things like this. I don't need to calculate the relevant probabilities, it's already been done. And yes, if you click on the link you will see the precise formula and references that outline the statistical concepts. And no, the concept doesn't involve "forcing" a best fit as you seem to believe. And oh, could you and Jeff please explain why the putative 10% between-group differences help your side? The FST values are right in line with racial differences; or are you going to start complaining about Analysis of Variance techniques now?

Hey, you guys really need to bring in someone like Theobald or Brazeau.....I'm bored with this guy already...........

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:18   

Order of occurence:
1. Louis states clearly: "Race is a very loose and imprecise term in either sociology or anthropology/human biology." and "Black people and white people (for instance) have genetic and phenotypic differences that can be broadly catagorised based on geographical population distribution."  

2. GoP says " not according to the molecules" and "I think the word you're looking for is race. Goodness, so much nervous doubletalk to obscure a relatively easy concept." While mentioning FBI DNA profiles and epidemiologics, where "racial categories [are] useful"  


BECAUSE you claimed race was a simple concept, GoP, I asked some you simple questions about race :  
Quote
Tell me what number of genetic markers you consider to be capable of determining "race" for each group you consider to be a "race." Specify each one, please. Now apply those markers to each case I cited. Fucking idiot


Your response was on phylogenies. Now..you're saying I conflated the concepts? Your reply was:
Quote
might I suggest comparing phylogenetic trees derived from whole mtDNA (or at least a random sample of sequences from different regions), and then compare it to trees derived from y-chromosome haplogroups. I predict that the trees will match with a high level of significance (p<.001, both for the classic and Bayesian posterior probability). What is your prediction, Nine?


Now...you're  saying that
Quote
Oh dear, you're confusing molecualr phylogenies with DNA profiling. And oh yeah, racial clines do not refute racial classification


Did I ask for a phylogeny, stupid? No. Human "races" are all human -- I asked about race...because you said race was a "simple concept." And it is not -- as you've discovered -- hence your diversion off to phylogenies that have nothing to do with your ORIGINAL CLAIM and MY original response. Your whole act is based on slightly more disguised versions of the diversion, distraction, shift-the-goalpost, avoid the topic tactics of AirHead.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,06:49   

Nine:
 
Quote
BECAUSE you claimed race was a simple concept, GoP, I asked some you simple questions about race : [snip]


OK, I must leave in a half hour, and I might be gone for a couple of days, so I'll have to let you guys have yer way with me (be gentle, sweet Louis!;))

1) I still think the vast majority of people can be easily classified into clear-cut racial categories, and the tough cases are tough precisely because the races have interbred (and no, I don't think this is bad, wise guys).

2) However complex the scientific distinctions are, most people do not find the concept useless or difficult. In fact, science has validated people's gut impressions.

That is all.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,17:31   

Wow, GoP this stuff is pretty dry.  I think you guys would have a lot more fun if you just stuck to sharks.  I mean you got blues, whites, grays, black-tips, white-tips, lemons (still a color, right) and I'm sure a few more that I can't think of off the top of my head.  I'm sure there's enough genetic diversity there to make classification easy.  Just a suggestion...

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2006,21:50   

IOW, skeptic says:

"I ain't got no clue what ya all is a spoutin', but I think sharks is the coolest!"

airhead.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2006,03:18   

I guess satire doesn't come through well in print.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2006,08:21   

no, it came through just fine.

It was indeed satire worthy of an airhead.

I guess you missed why I used the word "analogy" when I asked you for your theory on shark behavior, as well.

Your knowledge of the ToE goes no farther than the discovery channel either, yet you feel more than free to expound ridiculous notions on that front.  why not sharks too?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2006,22:49   

Don't tell me that the dreadful Old Whiter Shade of Paley is stil trying to deny he's a racist?

He was rumbled a year ago -

- you're a racist GOP, and no amount of wriggling is going to change the fact - live with it.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2006,07:35   

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.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,06:42   

Flint:

To answer your question I would not let white people from Zimbabwe immigrate. I would treat them like other political dissidents and refugees (more later). This may seem strange, but their culture is really not our culture, and I think it would be a bad fit. Have you read Alexandra Fuller's autobiography? Their culture has diverged too much IMO. Besides, rules is rules.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,08:00   

I'd also like to address some other issues:

1) Is the PaleyPlan predictive?

Some people assert that the PaleyPlan can not identify successful immigrants ahead of time. The plan merely assumes that all "nonwhite" immigrants are incompatible, and as counterexamples pour in, it eqivocates on its definition of "compatibility" to escape falsification. A logically consistent application of the plan would rule out NE Asians, for example.

This charge is false for one simple reason: NE Asians, Jews, and even Indians have proven their cultural chops by shaping Western civilisation in the first place! To claim that they are "nonWestern" because they speak different languages, have different alphabets, etc. is ignoring the underlying connection between these societies and Europe. The Jews, Indians, and NE Asians have contributed great literature, science, and art to West, and share core cultural values such as self-denial, hard work, and economic independence. This is not to imply that nonWesterners do not have these values; many do, but it's all a matter of degree. The idea that others are responsible for one's success is found in great abundance in African and Muslim societies; that's why terrorism and genocide flourish in these areas. Blaming the Jew, blaming the Tutsi, blaming the colonialists -- it's all so much easier than simply taking charge of your own life. Simply look how these societies perform. Their utter failure to compete, or even achieve self-sufficiency, makes the point better than I do. And yet we're to assume that a change of location will erase this mindset, despite the overwhelming evidence that cultural mores are extremely hard to change (for the latest example, see Bush in Iraq).

2)Does the existence of race imply important racial differences?

To a Darwinist it must, because a geographic and chronological isolation of sufficient magnitude to produce differences in skin color, hair texture, and nose shape might also have time to create intellectual and temperamental differences, because the differential selective pressures don't stop at the body. How could they? In fact, recent genetic research indicates that, under the evolutionary timetable, natural selection did have enough time to craft different brains. So how in the world can a Darwinist assume that the brains of geographically separate groups, inhabiting different climates and enjoying different economic and technical achievements, would evolve in precise lockstep for over a 75000 years (to use the most optimistic example)? If anything, the presumption should be that the groups are different. Only a YEC can assume equal minds and personality types among the different races.

I challenge a Darwinist to prove otherwise. Only Flint is honest enough to concede the logical consequences of Darwinian philosophy.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,08:26   

Ghost:

Well, don't take your eye too far off the ball.

Yes, having had immigrants from basically every nationality in the world (including some recently created nations, and some from nations no longer around), we can pretty well go down the list seeing how each of them performed, on average. And if their average performance was no worse than average for the population as a whole, we (armed with deadly-accurate hindsight) can evaluate their cultures to discover what must have been good about it.

And *knowing it's there*, we're sure to find it. The PaleyPlan is most wonderfully postdictive. There are no more unknown nationalities to use as controls.

Quote
Does the existence of race imply important racial differences?

But of course, this was not the question. The question was, do real, double-blind obvious racial differences ipso facto justify discriminatory policies?

Let's posit for the sake of discussion that black Africans are stupid, the stupidity is dominant, no amount of cross-breeding will alleviate this, and that as a whole (with of course plenty of individual exceptions intellectually, culturally, and every which way) they'll just never fit in. OK, fine. Now, should they be *allowed* in anyway?

In any case, we're going around in circles again. I also favor discriminatory policies, but I would apply them retail rather than wholesale. As I wrote earlier, you know the rules, work within them or leave. Culture can be changed in a single generation; culture is not biology.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,09:02   

Flint:
   
Quote
And *knowing it's there*, we're sure to find it. The PaleyPlan is most wonderfully postdictive. There are no more unknown nationalities to use as controls.


Two things:

1) So what if my plan doesn't meet the technical requirements of a scientific theory? It works, and really, that's all that counts.

2) I assert that claim 1) is wrong. I predicted that the Caribbean immigrants to the UK and Canada would regress to their cultural mean, and they have. Look at recent news stories: many post-date my first post in this thread. The fact that we don't have untried immigrant groups is unfortunate, but the point is my plan can predict which immigrant groups among the current nationalities will rise to the top in any Western society. Future prediction: the African immigrants in Australia will fall below the mean performance of the SE Asian immigrants, and create a high-crime underclass within one generation. What is the liberal prediction? Don't tell me: first they'll predict success, and then blame white Australian "institutional racism" when the inevitable occurs, and call for even more speech codes and quotas. Just watch.

Also: you keep saying, "Let 'em in and let 'em succeed or fail on their own merits." But this won't happen, because:

1) Western morality won't permit massive failure among identifiable ethnic groups (nor should it; I'm not a fan of digging mass graves for the "losers")

2) As more immigrants flood in, they begin to rig the cultural and political landscape so that Western cultural values don't apply.

 
Quote
Let's posit for the sake of discussion that black Africans are stupid, the stupidity is dominant, no amount of cross-breeding will alleviate this, and that as a whole (with of course plenty of individual exceptions intellectually, culturally, and every which way) they'll just never fit in. OK, fine. Now, should they be *allowed* in anyway?


<sigh> You won't give this up, will you? OK, assuming these "facts" for the "sake of discussion", #### no they shouldn't be let in. Is this a trick question?

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,10:36   

Ghost:

I was just making sure I understood your position. I think I can accurately characterize it as follows:

We know the track records of certain cultures, which are uniformly abysmal in their native lands and everywhere else they have settled. Yes, individuals occasionally break free of this sorry trend, but not many and the trend doesn't vary anywhere.

It is not in the interest of the US or indeed any other nation to invite or permit sizeable numbers of immigrants from "proven failure" cultures. Even filtering these populations and approving only the very cream of the accomplished will be shown a failure after two generations.


Is that it, more or less?

Personally, I'd have gladly embraced the displaced Rhodesians, who had a demonstrated culture among themselves of education, dedication, hard work, foresight and planning.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2006,10:29   

Flint:
     
Quote
Ghost:

I was just making sure I understood your position. I think I can accurately characterize it as follows:

We know the track records of certain cultures, which are uniformly abysmal in their native lands and everywhere else they have settled. Yes, individuals occasionally break free of this sorry trend, but not many and the trend doesn't vary anywhere.

It is not in the interest of the US or indeed any other nation to invite or permit sizeable numbers of immigrants from "proven failure" cultures. Even filtering these populations and approving only the very cream of the accomplished will be shown a failure after two generations.

Is that it, more or less?


Yes, that's it. So now that at least one person understands my position, the debate can actually move forward. And while we're at it, here's a report on the excitement and diversity Swedish and Norwegian immigrants provide:
     
Quote
There has been a spike in the number of rape charges in Scandinavia in recent years. It has reached near epidemic proportions in Sweden. Although there are indications of a very high percentage of Muslim immigrants on the statistics, as it is with other kinds of crime, immigration is a non-issue for the political establishment a few weeks ahead of the Swedish national elections.

In neighboring Norway, there is an unprecedented rape wave in the capital city of Oslo.
“We have to be realistic. A series of rapes have made Oslo unsafe during the summer,” says Brit Opjordsmoen from DIXI, support centre for rape victims. “When we know that there are rapists on the loose in Oslo, we have to listen to advice from the police. They are right in warning women against going home alone at night.”

Opjordsmoen thinks it is astounding that Minister of Justice Knut Storberget gives advice contrary to that of the police, encouraging women not to change their behavior. “Ideally, we can all agree that girls should be able to move around freely, but we have to be realistic. Society is not like that. Many girls are too naïve, we have to be careful and watch out. Several rapes assaults in a short period of time is unusual,” says Opjordsmoen.

According to the support centre, rapes are usually committed by a person known to the victim. The peculiar thing about the many rapes in the city of Oslo now is that they are rapes by ambush, committed by strangers against women on their way home from a bar or in areas with little traffic. “We have seen a dramatic increase [in the number of rapes],” says Endre Sandvik, head of the emergency ward. The number of rapes in Oslo this summer is more than twice as high as it was last year.

In a questions and answers session with newspaper Aftenposten’s readers, Opjordsmoen has some politically correct comments, saying that they don’t know what percentage of these rapes are committed by people with immigrant background, and that much of these speculations is just “prejudice.”

With all due respect, I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect. Just a few weeks earlier, Aftenposten warned that “youths” are in the process of destroying Norway’s capital city, Oslo. Upon closer inspection, it turned out that these “youths” bear a striking resemblance to the same “youths” with Muslim immigrant background that are destroying so many cities across Western Europe. I know Norwegian girls that have experienced harassment by gangs, and it almost always involves Muslims: Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Pakistanis, and Somalis.
[...]
However, Aftenposten seems conveniently enough to have forgotten an article they printed five years ago. In 2001, two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital were immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. Norwegian women were victims in 80 percent of the cases.

Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

The numbers published in September 2001 were discussed in at least to out of Norway’s three largest newspapers: Aftenposten and Dagbladet. A leading member of the Liberal Party (Venstre), Odd Einar Dørum, demanded that all the numbers should be put on the table: “A scumbag is a scumbag, regardless of skin color”.

From 2001 to 2005, Dørum was Minister of Justice, and yet nobody has seen these statistics since 2001. The number of rape charges in Oslo has continued to rise, reaching record levels in 2005. There is ample evidence of brutal gang rapes, something that used to be rare in Scandinavia, being committed by immigrants against native girls.
[...]
In Sweden, ethnologist Maria Bäckman, in her study “Whiteness and gender,” has followed a group of Swedish girls in the suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm, where native Swedes have been turned into a tiny minority of the inhabitants due to rapid immigration. Bäckman relates that several of the girls she interviewed stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid unwanted attention and sexual harassment. They experienced that being blonde involves old men staring at you, cars honking their horns and boys calling you “whore.”

A report from organization Save the Children tells of how being a young Swedish girl today means feeling unsafe. The girls are scared of being raped, a possibility that appears very real to them. Many girls are planning how to go home at night, how to pretend to be talking on the mobile phone, how to keep their keys in their hand to defend themselves or how to simply run all the way home. Both the fear and the choice of strategies indicate that many girls feel genuinely unsafe outdoors during certain hours of the day. The fear is well founded. A striking number of girls have experienced harassment from boys or men. Most frequently, the harassment comes from boys of the same age as the girls. Being called “whore” has become so common in some schools that several of the girls say the teachers no longer react to this.

Tensta is a suburb in northern Stockholm with a very high concentration of Muslim immigrants. Actress Ylva Törnlund has visited several schools in Tensta, and was alarmed by the harsh atmosphere she discovered there. “The attitudes we meet in the schools are frightening. One boy talked about how girls should be f**ked to pieces until they bleed,” Törnlund said.

This trend is not exclusive to Scandinavia. It is the same all over Western Europe wherever we find significant numbers of Muslim immigrants. In fact, the number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. German journalist Gudrun Eussner considers this to be “sexuality as a weapon against disobedient and non-Muslim women, both categorized as “unbelievers”. Against them jihad is the duty, and what to do with women “conquered” in jihad, this may be read in the Qur’an: they become slaves to be used by the victors.”

[my emphasis]


So Flint, please explain how these immigrants are providing the "sunlight" and "rain" that enrich the native culture. I really want to hear you, or anyone, defend this immigration policy.

Please be as detailed as possible. I really want to hear a reasoned defense. Really.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2006,11:09   

Ghost:

Well, I could have sworn I'd written "play by the rules our you're outta here." The rules are being broken. And this is the other side of my "retail evaluation" coin. If you commit a crime, what matters is that you committed a crime, not where you came from or what your "cultural values" once were. You are here, you adopt the local values, or you are gone.

So I'm afraid we're not going to agree here. Rapists should be punished, severely. If they are immigrants, then AFTER they are punished, they should be deported. But *not everyone*. Just those who break the rules. I simply do not accept that I should be punished if you screw up.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2006,06:16   

Flint:
Quote
Ghost:

Well, I could have sworn I'd written "play by the rules our you're outta here." The rules are being broken. And this is the other side of my "retail evaluation" coin.

Yes, and what if the police can't catch many of the perpetrators? And what about the families who produce these thugs? Please show how this can realistically happen, when it ain't happening now. I can point to countries that manage to have tight immigration policies (like America pre-1965, and non-European countries currently), but you can't point to countries successfully, and humanely, expelling immigrants.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
  245 replies since Nov. 13 2005,11:56 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (9) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]