science is helping racist

Quote:

---

Females, predominantly, have more attuned skills in:
- Verbal ability
- Emotional expression
- Compliance/Cooperation
- Multi-tasking
- Developmentally stronger (ie. fetal development is stronger)

Males, predominantly, have more attuned skills in:
- Visual Spatial ability
- Activity
- Fear/Pain Tolerance

Math: In middle school years, females are marginally less effective with math. As they age, they come to equality.

Aggression: Males are more physically violent, females are more socially violent.

---

Well, Onus wrote this, however thinking about this more this is sexist. To highlight this I will change it to black people and white people.

Black people, have more skills in
-Running and long distance running
-Sprinting and jumping
-They are stronger
-Lower IQ, they are stupider
-More violent

White people, have more skills in
-Science and mathematics
-Logic and reasoning
-They are masters not slaves
-Developing cultures and technology

Math: Black people only make up 1% of the mathematical research community in university.

Aggresion: Black people make up half the population in jail, however most mass murderers where white.

I think this highlights a point. You can't jugde people on basic sterotypes and the gender sterotype of woman is not good. It like the sterotype that woman chat more then men, this is generally true, however if you look at it in more detail their is lots of differences. Some people speak a little, however some people speak alot. In newscientist they pointed out that in the study on speaking they found females generally spoke more, however the three people who spoke the most where all male.

Again, even then how can you show that it is genetic or upbringing. Onus mention males have better visualization, however as shown if woman play action games then that gender difference is no longer their.

Race is abit more complicated, however you can say black people are stupid and give them IQ test and then match it with whites. However, how can you be sure this is genetic. Again, the IQ test has been used by racist to justify their belife that they our superior.

When someone like James Watson comes out and say black people are stupid and that we assume their equal but their not. This is basically giving a thumbs up to racist. Gender research and narrow sterotype is giving a thumbs up to sexist.

Their a long history of scientific racism. I hope it ends soon.

I don't think we can deny that there are basic physical differences between races.
This isn't racism.


Racism is the hatred of a race because of what they are; identification of scientific differences is cold and hard; no hatred or dislike, just truth. I can see how this can be manipulated, but I don't think it is racist in itself.

Well, I wouldn't call it racism/sexism unless people take it that way.

I mean, isn't that just statistics? Scientifical statistics that say "males are predominantly this and females are predominantly that"...surely that's just a statistical observance?

I, for one, don't take statistics into consideration at all when it comes to other people.
My point being that if people take those statistics as racist/sexist then it's those people who are such, not the statistics themselves. Maybe some people are so obsessed with statistical calculations that they've simply gone past counting objects and went on to counting people without noticing? Or without caring. Either way, I doubt it's all that much of an issue. Everyone has their own views and it's not like anyone actively forces the above statistics on to the social masses.

wendy, you are clearly looking for yet another topic to spit your unending venomous remarks about. The analogy you used paints you worse than O'nus on the sheer fact that you had to sit there and think about your own arbitrary subjective stereotypes for blacks and whites, all of which I don't agree with or have ever thought about in my life. It would honestly take somewhat a closet racist individual to have the audacity to type shit like that. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Does it honestly offend you to see someone lay out pretty basic observations and differences between the two sexes, or are you just fomenting about your pathetic lot in life again?

Men have a penis and women have a vagina... Am I being sexist there too?

Stop looking for arguments and start learning how to spell check and take a chill pill. A mod should lock this pathetic excuse for a thread...

Quote:

---

Either way, I doubt it's all that much of an issue. Everyone has their own views and it's not like anyone actively forces the above statistics on to the social masses.

---

However, when you read that statistically black people have a lower IQ, you will start to think that maybe black people are stupid. Reading black people have a lower IQ is a issue, as it shapes your opinnion of a black person.

Reading woman chat more is a issue, as it shapes your opinnion of woman being a chatterbox. Or that woman are emotional e.t.c.

Quote:

---

on the sheer fact that you had to sit there and think about your own arbitrary subjective stereotypes for blacks and whites, all of which I don't agree with or have ever thought about in my life. It would honestly take somewhat a closest racist individual to have the audacity to type shit like that. You should be ashamed of yourself.

---

First of all I didn't have to think about it, all I had to do is look at the scientific research. Seriously, I'm not racist. The point is if your not a idiot you can think of stereotypes. I believe everyone is equal. It funny, because most of my friends are black.

Quote:

---

Does it honestly offend you to see someone lay out pretty basic observations and differences between the two sexes, or are you just fomenting about your lot in life again?

---

No it offends me when the basic observations are rubbish.

Quote:

---

Men have a penis and women have a vagina... Am I being sexist there too?

---

That different to saying that men have better visualization skills then woman. Can you see the difference?

Quote:

---

Stop looking for arguments and start learning how to spell check and take a chill pill.

---

Now it the you can't spell argument. Again, look up dyselxia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

However, when you read that statistically black people have a lower IQ, you will start to think that maybe black people are stupid. Reading black people have a lower IQ is a issue, as it shapes your opinnion of a black person.

---

That statistic only draws the conclusion that "black people are stupid" if that's the conclusion you are looking for. More realistically, it says that, on the whole, blacks probably have much less opportunities than whites for higher education, which is true, if you know anything about sociology. Higher education involves money. Often, a Lot of money. You can't draw a single conclusion from a statistic like that, without having any knowledge in the difference of income status, between blacks and whites.

Give a white man and a black man, the same school..the same corriculum, and the same amount of aid, and then study their I.Q.'s. Only then can such a claim be made, on either side. That simply doesn't happen on a wide scale. So comparing the two, on the whole, simply isn't valid.

Aggression has more to deal with surrounding circumstances than race. You can take a white kid, born from a family in the richest part of Beverly Hills, move him to the projects at age 4, and by the time he is a grown man, he will be just as aggressive as whomever he has surrounded himself with, throughout life, whether that person was black white cuban or asian.

You are taking a huge leap in trying to draw a conclusion from a "study" that I've still never seen any evidence for (and I was aware of this whole thing, since the time that Watson first said it).

He's also said:

Quote:

---

Hunt-Grubbe stated that Watson's "hope" was "everyone is equal" but quoted him as having said "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

---

Go to any large, upscale company, and ask them if they have trouble with "all of their black employees." Using that real-world litmus test, you will begin to understand how wrong that statement is.

Also:

Quote:

---

On October 19th, Watson issued an apology, stating that he was "mortified" and "cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said."[50][51] He also claimed to "understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have . . . To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

---

-emphasis mine.

So...taking that into consideration...what were you saying, again? :wtf:

pwned! :chuckle:

Scientific Racial Discrimination: "You black folks can run faster than we can, therefore WE'RE BETTER!"



Well, people, when the human race travelled about on the globe, they OBVIOUSLY had to adapt to their environment by the means of evolution, albeit on a minute scale, of course.

People with dark skin color, for instance, have a dark skin because it offers them protection against the sun. Better than us white people. If you'd compare how a dark and a white person would fare in the harsh sun of Africa, you'll find, in the end, that the white person will (in the worst case) die of skin cancer, whereas the dark person will just have to whipe off the sweat in order to survive. Dark folks have ADAPTED to extremely sunny climates, simply to survive better.

We white folks, however, have white skin because of the cold climates we live in. We do NOT have sunny climates, and therefore we need to use all the sunlight that we can get in order to survive. As you probably know, white skin cells produce much more vitamin D than dark skin cells, and therefore, we are much more suited to the colder, cloudier climates than dark folks. Where we would just say "whew, that's cold", dark people would die of a vitamin D deficiency (<--- over-dramatisation, do not take seriously). This is a FACT, and is hard science. We (I'm white, so I'm speaking on behalf of the white folks all over the world) have ADAPTED to extremely not-sunny environments, again, simply to survive better.

This is not racism, this just are subtle differences in "race"... This is science, and science just happens to have found these differences.

But now: HOW, exactly is science helping racism?
Racism is the discrimination on the grounds of race.

Now, I'll admit that there are differences between "races", but how can that help racism?

"Yeah, you're more adapted to sunnier climates, therefore we white people are better."

or

"Yeah, well, but YOU'RE more adapted to colder climates, therefore we dark people are better."

I don't see it. HOW, for goodness' sakes, can you discriminate on grounds like that?


If anything, I'd say that science doesn't fuel racism, but actually puts the fire out: science clarifies that different "races" are more specialised in different fields. Where we can survive in cold climates, they can survive in sunnier climates (or vice versa, if you will :wink:). Therefore, we aren't MORE developed or specialised than them, we're just specialised and developed in different areas, in order to survive.

Like worms and dogs: worms have specialised and developed to live underground and to eat roots of plants (or whatever they eat), which is what they do best. Dogs, on the other hand, have developed and specialised in order to live on the ground, and to eat wild stuff, and to wag their tails and everything, which, in turn, is what DOGS do best. It's all about specialisation, which is, ultimately, what evolution is all about...

Therefore:
Worms aren't more developed than dogs, they are just specialised differently (try putting a dog under the ground and see how long it survives, and you'll get my point).

Dark people aren't more developed than white people, they are just specialised differently...


Therefore: science does NOT fuel racism..



There, feel free to comment...

Quote:

---

That statistic only draws the conclusion that "black people are stupid" if that's the conclusion you are looking for. More realistically, it says that, on the whole, blacks probably have much less opportunities than whites for higher education, which is true, if you know anything about sociology. Higher education involves money.

---

I agree with you. However, some people assume it is genetic, that black people are genetically inferior. Again, the bell curve is a good example of how the statistics can portray black people as inferior.

Quote:

---

So...taking that into consideration...what were you saying, again?

---

His comment was racist, so he apologised and changed his words. Any way we can't really know, as the social pressure on Watson was huge.

Quote:

---

pwned!

---

I'm waiting for your reply, seriously is saying pwned the best you can do.

Quote:

---

But now: HOW, exactly is science helping racism?
Racism is the discrimination on the grounds of race.

---

Again, if you look at Eugenics then this is not the case. If you look at the difference in races, it not just colour. Their is also skull structure and brain sizes, now research on this was used to justify racism. Again, now we have the IQ test and the bell curve.

Also, what about the intelligence genes. What happens then? Because then your get people arguing that black people are genetically inferior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

However, some people assume it is genetic, that black people are genetically inferior.

---

And that means.....what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Again, the bell curve is a good example of how the statistics can portray black people as inferior.

---

"Can?" or "Does?" Only one is relevant. Either way, please elaborate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

His comment was racist, so he apologised and changed his words. Any way we can't really know, as the social pressure on Watson was huge.

---

So, at first you were quoting him and using his comment as a basis for your argument, and now, when he retracts it, you talk about the social pressure that probably made him retract? You're now accusing him of publically proposing bad science, for a political reason? Sounds like a double standard, to me.

Quote:

---

White people, have more skills in
-They are masters not slaves

---

Oh...and PLEASE tell me I don't have to explain to you why this was a completely idiotic addition to your (already misguided) list. :shakehead2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

I'm waiting for your reply, seriously is saying pwned the best you can do.

---

You are an ill-informed idiot. I have nothing to prove to you.

Here's a dollar. Now, go buy a clue, and come back when you actually amount to something. Ignorant tool.:cool:

Quote:

---

And that means.....what?

---

That when white people moved to europe the environment gave them superior genes because of evolution. I don't believe this, however it has been argued.

Quote:

---

So, at first you were quoting him and using his comment as a basis for your argument, and now, when he retracts it, you talk about the social pressure that probably made him retract? You're now accusing him of publically proposing bad science, for a political reason? Sounds like a double standard, to me.

---

I'm just saying that you can't really tell if he is a racist, however he not helping as his comment give the thumbs up to racist. It kind of like when he said it okay to abort babies if their gay. Again, he might not be homophobic, however he is not helping. A apology can mean little.

Quote:

---

Oh...and PLEASE tell me I don't have to explain to you why this was a completely idiotic addition to your (already misguided) list.

---

Well, to most racist black people are seen as slaves. The list is not my belifes, the list is the belifes of racists.

Quote:

---

You are an ill-informed idiot. I have nothing to prove to you.

Here's a dollar. Now, go buy a clue, and come back when you actually amount to something. Ignorant tool.

---

See I guess when you have no logical comeback you just act like your smart. Nice one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

See I guess when you have no logical comeback you just act like your smart. Nice one

---

I don't have to act... I am. :P

Also, it's you're not your.

Please, just stop while you're behind... This thread is so pathetic it's beyond words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

That when white people moved to europe the environment gave them superior genes because of evolution. I don't believe this, however it has been argued.

---

What I meant was, "What does that mean to me?" The answer is "nothing," unless it's backed by scientific evidence, which I haven't seen. Simply bringing up that some people argue it to be so is no more relevant to this thread than saying "some people believe the moon is made out of cheese" is to our present space program, unless there is evidence to state otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

The list is not my belifes, the list is the belifes of racists.

---

Then I apologize. I thought those were a list of ideas that you were trying to defend.

Quote:

---

Simply bringing up that some people argue it to be so is no more relevant to this thread than saying "some people believe the moon is made out of cheese" is to our present space program, unless there is evidence to state otherwise.

---

Read the bell curve, it gives plenty evidence for racism.

Quote:

---

Then I apologize. I thought those were a list of ideas that you were trying to defend.

---

I am not racist.

Hey, that unfair moving this to senseless banter.

So we can't discuss scientific racism. Again if you do a wikipedia such you will find it does exsist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Again, if you look at Eugenics then this is not the case. If you look at the difference in races, it not just colour. Their is also skull structure and brain sizes, now research on this was used to justify racism. Again, now we have the IQ test and the bell curve.

---

I realise it isn't just about skin color, but everything together: people evolved, people developed and specialised that way. Everything we are now is a result of us specialising into what we are now, just and only to survive.

OK, second point: now, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it long been doubted that IQ is the real measure of someone's real intelligence?

I don't know very much about this subject, so I'll have to get some info on this, but I've always heard that the "Intelligence Quotient" is only a small part of the real intelligence someone posesses.

And about the intelligence-gene: again, I don't know very much about this, but from what I've heard, recent research again doubted the statement of one intelligence-gene even existing, as a supposed 40% of all genes together were to be responsible for an individual's intelligence.

Hey wendy it's been awhile since I've seen you around.

I always thought that some people of other genders or races may be influenced somehow by biased natures of their race/gender in turn they may act more like what the biased people say about them, and they may even use it as an excuse such as blacks seemly more criminal like, they may use that as an excuse to be a criminal, or women seeing other women talk more thus wanting to talk more themselves, but part of it just stems from their racial culture existing even withen american culture.

I'm not saying I'm a racist this certianly doesn't apply to a large amount of minoritys.

Dunno who moved it to SB, but I'm moving it back.

And I haven't read the Bell Curve yet, Wendy. A quick search on wikipedia notes that there is a lot of controversy behind it. I may look into it, some time.

For great justice, please do attach a dildo to your vagina so as to minimize the gender gap. You goddamn sexist.

P.S. Even if blacks had a genetically lower IQ, what would be the problem? First of all, IQ is a load of garbage and secondly it doesn't even matter whether someone is smart or stupid as long as you treat them like a human being. This thread fails.

Quote:

---

For great justice, please do attach a dildo to your vagina so as to minimize the gender gap. You goddamn sexist.

---

Koritte if that comment was for me re read the thread

Quote:

---

but part of it just stems from their racial culture existing even withen american culture.

---

Yes, but where does racism come from. Antisemitism comes from religion i.e. Christianty and now is popular in Islamic religion. However, racism does not come from religion. The idea of racism seems to come from science saying that science does not support racism.

It just that in the history of racism science plays a role. They originally used a comment from Aristotle about slavery being human nature. Aristotle was not racist, however it was used. Religion was also used, you know about Noah and god made one of his sons slaves to the his other two sons.

Oh God, you again?

You obviously failed to see the point.

Genders and races are more similar than different. The point is that marginal differences are incidental, most likely propagated by perpetuating stereotypes. However, they fail to negate the quintessential familiarity between all fundamental human beings.

Science does not seek any opinionated mandate. This does not neglect the possibility of malicious intents through research and presentation. However, these individuals should be regarded individually and isolated from the field of science as they contaminate the true intentions of the scientific endeavour. The self-fulfilling prophecy, confirmation bias, etc. all serve problems in scientific research and this is why the scientifif method exists to ardently remove conscientous manipulation invariably vis-a-vis scientific research.

Would you arbitrarily open a history book and discuss how Ghandi held black people to be worthy of avoiding because of their "dangerous" nature. Therefore, history proves that black people are racist? No, history, in its isolated body, is an entity free of consciousness and opinion. Thus, it is the people that inoculate racism.

Do not make the mistake of thinking science is racist. People are racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Black people, have more skills in
-Running and long distance running
-Sprinting and jumping
-They are stronger
-Lower IQ, they are stupider
-More violent

White people, have more skills in
-Science and mathematics
-Logic and reasoning
-They are masters not slaves
-Developing cultures and technology

Math: Black people only make up 1&#37; of the mathematical research community in university.

Aggresion: Black people make up half the population in jail, however most mass murderers where white.

---

Can you give scientific support for such asinine claims?

~

There seems to be an awful lot of discrimination against racists here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merck

There seems to be an awful lot of discrimination against racists here.

---

What are you? Non-racist? You anti-anti-racist bastard.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

Scientific Racial Discrimination: "You black folks can run faster than we can, therefore WE'RE BETTER!"



Well, people, when the human race travelled about on the globe, they OBVIOUSLY had to adapt to their environment by the means of evolution, albeit on a minute scale, of course.

People with dark skin color, for instance, have a dark skin because it offers them protection against the sun. Better than us white people. If you'd compare how a dark and a white person would fare in the harsh sun of Africa, you'll find, in the end, that the white person will (in the worst case) die of skin cancer, whereas the dark person will just have to whipe off the sweat in order to survive. Dark folks have ADAPTED to extremely sunny climates, simply to survive better.

We white folks, however, have white skin because of the cold climates we live in. We do NOT have sunny climates, and therefore we need to use all the sunlight that we can get in order to survive. As you probably know, white skin cells produce much more vitamin D than dark skin cells, and therefore, we are much more suited to the colder, cloudier climates than dark folks. Where we would just say "whew, that's cold", dark people would die of a vitamin D deficiency (<--- over-dramatisation, do not take seriously). This is a FACT, and is hard science. We (I'm white, so I'm speaking on behalf of the white folks all over the world) have ADAPTED to extremely not-sunny environments, again, simply to survive better.

This is not racism, this just are subtle differences in "race"... This is science, and science just happens to have found these differences.

But now: HOW, exactly is science helping racism?
Racism is the discrimination on the grounds of race.

Now, I'll admit that there are differences between "races", but how can that help racism?

"Yeah, you're more adapted to sunnier climates, therefore we white people are better."

or

"Yeah, well, but YOU'RE more adapted to colder climates, therefore we dark people are better."

I don't see it. HOW, for goodness' sakes, can you discriminate on grounds like that?


If anything, I'd say that science doesn't fuel racism, but actually puts the fire out: science clarifies that different "races" are more specialised in different fields. Where we can survive in cold climates, they can survive in sunnier climates (or vice versa, if you will :wink:). Therefore, we aren't MORE developed or specialised than them, we're just specialised and developed in different areas, in order to survive.

Like worms and dogs: worms have specialised and developed to live underground and to eat roots of plants (or whatever they eat), which is what they do best. Dogs, on the other hand, have developed and specialised in order to live on the ground, and to eat wild stuff, and to wag their tails and everything, which, in turn, is what DOGS do best. It's all about specialisation, which is, ultimately, what evolution is all about...

Therefore:
Worms aren't more developed than dogs, they are just specialised differently (try putting a dog under the ground and see how long it survives, and you'll get my point).

Dark people aren't more developed than white people, they are just specialised differently...


Therefore: science does NOT fuel racism..



There, feel free to comment...

---

Considering things such as this, is it racist for employers to hire people based on their race? I mean, say at a job that is working out in the winter in the snow all day and they pick a white person specifically because of what you mentioned. Is this racist? I mean, isn't it BASICALLY the same thing as only hiring women as bra models due to men not having boobs? Though not a race issue, it is still the same concept. So, would this be racist? By the definition of racism - discriminating based on one's race - yes, yes it is. But on a deeper level than that, is it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Their a long history of scientific racism. I hope it ends soon.

---

The scientific data does not support rascism. Look who funds the studies and meta-analyses "proving" an intelligence gap (for example, Pioneer Fund), and read the rebuttals against anyone claiming so. Anyway, "science" cannot be rascist, only people can be in their actions.

And even if the studies eventually did prove there was a miniscule IQ difference (which they haven't, and it would have to be miniscule or else we wouldn't have so much trouble proving it), so what? I don't think the studies are useful and I do think they are a waste of time and effort, with no good to come from them, but I don't think we have anything to be afraid of as long as people are judged as individuals. Which I realize is often not the case, but that usually isn't due to the rascist's interpretation of the scientific data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

I mean, say at a job that is working out in the winter in the snow all day and they pick a white person specifically because of what you mentioned. Is this racist? I mean, isn't it BASICALLY the same thing as only hiring women as bra models due to men not having boobs?

---

That is not a good analogy at all. They pick the white person to work in snow because their skin is better at making vitamin D? I don't get it.

I'm still asking myself if I can trust my eyes and if wendylove DID create such a thread. I even reality-checked.

There are differences between teh sexes for sure. But the differences there are between races are slight and subtle and mostly related to personality. All other differences exist because of the different cultures there are.

That's all I need to reply to the original poster.

Every person is an individual. No matter what this or that study does to try to get around the huge forest of confounding variables and says about average differences among races and between genders, none of it gets around the fact that you cannot judge or make assumptions about an individual based on his or her race or gender. There are many, many major exceptions to every racial and gender stereotype and extreme deviations from the stated averages. Even if every word of The Bell Curve were true, it would not prove that Condoleeza Rice is not a supergenius or that Joey Buttafuoco is one. People should be judged on their own merits, not on groups they can be classified into because of biological characteristics. Every race and both genders have a tremendous amount of diversity within them. There is no way around that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merck

There seems to be an awful lot of discrimination against racists here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

What are you? Non-racist? You anti-anti-racist bastard.

~

---

Awesome.

BTW - This thread has been a huge waste of the last 3 minutes of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

First of all I didn't have to think about it, all I had to do is look at the scientific research. Seriously, I'm not racist. The point is if your not a idiot you can think of stereotypes. I believe everyone is equal. It funny, because most of my friends are black.

---

That seems to be a re-occuring statement amongst closet racists...like they can say whatever they want regarding other races in a racist format as long as they have enough "colored" friends of the race they're talking about..that perfectly justifies the very reason why they aren't racist. :hrm: Anyway, onto my 2 cents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wendylove

Well, Onus wrote this, however thinking about this more this is sexist. To highlight this I will change it to black people and white people.

Black people, have more skills in
-Running and long distance running
-Sprinting and jumping
-They are stronger
-Lower IQ, they are stupider
-More violent

White people, have more skills in
-Science and mathematics
-Logic and reasoning
-They are masters not slaves
-Developing cultures and technology

Math: Black people only make up 1&#37; of the mathematical research community in university.

Aggresion: Black people make up half the population in jail, however most mass murderers where white.

I think this highlights a point. You can't jugde people on basic sterotypes and the gender sterotype of woman is not good. It like the sterotype that woman chat more then men, this is generally true, however if you look at it in more detail their is lots of differences. Some people speak a little, however some people speak alot. In newscientist they pointed out that in the study on speaking they found females generally spoke more, however the three people who spoke the most where all male.

Again, even then how can you show that it is genetic or upbringing. Onus mention males have better visualization, however as shown if woman play action games then that gender difference is no longer their.

Race is abit more complicated, however you can say black people are stupid and give them IQ test and then match it with whites. However, how can you be sure this is genetic. Again, the IQ test has been used by racist to justify their belife that they our superior.

When someone like James Watson comes out and say black people are stupid and that we assume their equal but their not. This is basically giving a thumbs up to racist. Gender research and narrow sterotype is giving a thumbs up to sexist.

Their a long history of scientific racism. I hope it ends soon.

---

Sexism is ENTIRELY different from racism, wendylove...your ignorance has soared to an unfathomable level. It seems to me you took what O'nus said completely out of context and flipped it into a "black and white thing". And furthermore, from your statistics you imply that blacks are the "weaker" race. Which is not at all true. Your avatar sports Christopher Lloyd in character from the hit trilogy Back to the future, where the movie is themed around a time machine. Ironically enough you'll probably need that time machine, to go back in time to erase this horrific thread. You epitomize what it means to be a 21st century racist. Consider this thread your personal pandora's box.

p.s. It's estimated that 100 million blacks were slaughtered during slavery and yet blacks are "statistically more violent"? :hrm: Perhaps you should re-calibrate your statistics, and while you're at it, factor in The Holocaust as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kichu

Awesome.

BTW - This thread has been a huge waste of the last 3 minutes of my life.

---

So good to find peopel that agree with you! :-P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

So good to find peopel that agree with you! :-P

---

Are you being racist??

No, actually science says it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No, actually science says it so.

---

Hmm....yes. Quite.

Science is helping you justify your racism Wendy?

When scientific research shows some kind of difference between men and women, how is that sexist? It doesn't say, "Men have better visualization skills... therefore they are better... haha women sux0rz" All it says is the following:

"From a sample of 1000 men and 1000 women, there is a CLEAR difference in visualization skills between the two". The doesn't mean "all men are better at it than all women"... it just means ON AVERAGE, it's the case. How is that sexist? Sexism begins where someone uses that data to only interview men for a position that requires visualization skills. But then, the sexist one is the recruiter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Replicon

When scientific research shows some kind of difference between men and women, how is that sexist? It doesn't say, "Men have better visualization skills... therefore they are better... haha women sux0rz" All it says is the following:

"From a sample of 1000 men and 1000 women, there is a CLEAR difference in visualization skills between the two". The doesn't mean "all men are better at it than all women"... it just means ON AVERAGE, it's the case. How is that sexist? Sexism begins where someone uses that data to only interview men for a position that requires visualization skills. But then, the sexist one is the recruiter.

---

I don't think it would be sexist to hire a man in preference to a woman in a job that required great physical endurance and emotional stability.


Men are better at these particular things; this doesn't make them in any way superior beings somehow.



This isn't sexism if someone did that; it's merely practicality.

Somebody would have to be pretty damn stupid to deny that there are physical differences between the races.
Nevertheless all the research in the world is only ever going to prove that most of these differences are pretty superficial.

The big problem is cultural and social issues which keep some members of the population from integrating effectively with others and perpetuate certain mindsets in communities that are impossible to break.

RACE IS NOT THE ISSUE!

CULTURE IS!!!

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's just race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

That is not a good analogy at all. They pick the white person to work in snow because their skin is better at making vitamin D? I don't get it.

---

If white people are scientifically proven to be better adapted to perform in colder conditions, is it racist to hire someone in a job in which cold conditions are experienced based on one's race? What don't you get about that?

It defenitely IS racism to say that black people are more violent than white people. That their IQs are lower. Etc etc.

It is the process of "de-humanisation" in order to justify racial cleansing and racial inequality. It is judging people based on their race. Which is an old mistake humanity can't seem to avoid. So I am Jewish.

Does that mean I am good with Money? That I am probably wealthy and inherited my father's jewelry or lawyer-business? That I'm wearing a suit and that I am good at decieving people?

Well FUCK no I'm a broke ass, dreadlocked, Marijuana loving dude trying all he can to get a carreer in Graphical Arts. I AM the destruction of "The Stereotype" cuz these stereotypes were made up by TRAGICALLY simple minded people to devide the people in sub-cathegories while people's characters aren't just black or white, but all colors of the rainbow and all middle-tones and cross-shades...etc. Methaphorically speaking.

Those who associate Character trates with Racial/Ethnic-traits are Lowly intelligent and socially disfunctional peope. They are retarded and scared of the diversity of this world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

It defenitely IS racism to say that black people are more violent than white people. That their IQs are lower. Etc etc.

---

OK. I think I agree with you, but take this hypothetical situation:



If There are two types of people in the world; X and Y people


And out of 100,000 tests the IQ of X is say, 50% lower than Y.


Would it be racist to claim that X-types have generally lower IQ's?

Actually Carousoul, as Oneironaut said, you cannot really say that X-types are genetically presdisposed to have a lower IQ. Sure, you could say that the ones who took the test might. But there are other reasons for that result. As O said, say the X types who took the test had no education... it wouldn't be a very good measurement. You could only say that if the group X and Y were both raised in the same circumstances and then took the test. Sure, there would be a pattern in the results. But the conclusion you make might not always be right. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

Actually Carousoul, as Oneironaut said, you cannot really say that X-types are genetically presdisposed to have a lower IQ. Sure, you could say that the ones who took the test might. But there are other reasons for that result. As O said, say the X types who took the test had no education... it wouldn't be a very good measurement. You could only say that if the group X and Y were both raised in the same circumstances and then took the test. Sure, there would be a pattern in the results. But the conclusion you make might not always be right. :)

---

But it would probably apply to the X types in the world?


Thay would still on general have a lower IQ; regardless of why..

So it wouldn't be racist to assume that an X type would be less intelligent than a Y type in an interview because the majority are; for various reasons even if not their genotype?

I don't believe that to be true.

If you take a poll with a number of polsters that is less than the collective group of each side being polled, you are not getting an accurate account of that collective group. You are only accounting for the members of that group that actually took the poll.

If you went to a state that is primarily democratic, and took a poll about which demographic is more likely to vote democratic or republican, and the poll says X amount of blacks are most likely to vote democratic, then would it be accurate to expand that result to a national level and say that "in America, most blacks are likely to vote democratic," simply because the majority of people polled credited that conclusion? No.

When you do a sectional poll, you are not getting an accurate account of the nationwide (let alone global) statistic.

A poll with millions of polsters isn't accurate on a global scale. A poll with tens of thousands is even less accurate, on a global scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't believe that to be true.

If you take a poll with a number of polsters that is less than the collective group of each side being polled, you are not getting an accurate account of that collective group. You are only accounting for the members of that group that actually took the poll.

If you went to a state that is primarily democratic, and took a poll about which demographic is more likely to vote democratic or republican, and the poll says X amount of blacks are most likely to vote democratic, then would it be accurate to expand that result to a national level and say that "in America, most blacks are likely to vote democratic," simply because the majority of people polled credited that conclusion? No.

When you do a sectional poll, you are not getting an accurate account of the nationwide (let alone global) statistic.

A poll with millions of polsters isn't accurate on a global scale. A poll with tens of thousands is even less accurate, on a global scale.

---

Truth.



Polls are unreliable.

It's science and nobody can deny it. I had a row with my parents over this because my stepdad was trying to tell me that even though they are statistics everyone is an individual so we can't judge people blah blah bloody dah. Then I said yes but I mean the average and he's like, "Yes, the AVERAGE population of black people" and I'm like "YES the average population of black people not every individual!". We ended up arguing about something we agreed on and he apparently "won". I hate parents :(

Sorry that was uncalled for... but I find it so hard to beleive that many of the population still beleive in this whole "everybody's equal" business when there's SO much evidence against that. Whether you call this racism or not is should be accepted because it's so obviously true. Same with the sexism thing. How can men and women be the same when we're different genders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idolfan

It's science and nobody can deny it. I had a row with my parents over this because my stepdad was trying to tell me that even though they are statistics everyone is an individual so we can't judge people blah blah bloody dah. Then I said yes but I mean the average and he's like, "Yes, the AVERAGE population of black people" and I'm like "YES the average population of black people not every individual!". We ended up arguing about something we agreed on and he apparently "won". I hate parents :(

Sorry that was uncalled for... but I find it so hard to beleive that many of the population still beleive in this whole "everybody's equal" business when there's SO much evidence against that. Whether you call this racism or not is should be accepted because it's so obviously true. Same with the sexism thing. How can men and women be the same when we're different genders?

---

-puts a dunce cap on you- Go sit in the corner with Wendy Love, we'll let you know when you may come out. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasup

If white people are scientifically proven to be better adapted to perform in colder conditions, is it racist to hire someone in a job in which cold conditions are experienced based on one's race? What don't you get about that?

---

White people have light skin so they can absorb vitamin D in less light, they don't necessarily make better snow-shovelers. I was saying that men not having boobs is a lot different than not hiring black people to work in the snow.

Never mind. That paragraph is one of the more inane things I've ever said, but you drove me to it. :P

Ok science has nothing to do with racism. Atleast not my kind of science. So how can it help racist. It doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

White people have light skin so they can absorb vitamin D in less light, they don't necessarily make better snow-shovelers.

---

:rolllaugh: