|
|
| Re: Why Does Everything Suck? (762061) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Why Does Everything Suck? |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Thu Apr 7 00:22:57 2011, in response to Re: Why Does Everything Suck?, posted by Easy on Wed Apr 6 20:34:48 2011. Semantic arguments typically suck. But sometimes they are necessary, as it is here. As I did with defining atheism, sometimes the language is too clumsy to handle a concept, sometimes inadvertently, other times, as in this case, on purpose.Tying the meaning of racism, which, as I correctly defined it, means hatred of other races, to an empirical statement about genetic racial differences is foolish, because what if they turn out to be true? Would believers in the truth be required to be racists? This was done, as I said before, out of revulsion to Nazism and other racist doctrines rather than for any empirical reason about race differences. Tying a moral claim (racism and the correct vilification of such) to and empirical claim (race differences) is wrong, and is only a way to create intellectual dishonesty. In anycase these definitions are rather bad, barely coherent even, and let's take a look at each one: wikipedia - Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities I'm really having a hard time understanding what this is actually trying to say. Genetic factors which constitutes race, etc...? All "genetic factors" comprise the human species, and are naturally going to comprise race. This is tautological. They are by definition (a meaningful definition) the primary determinant of human traits and capabilities. All human traits are affected by genes. and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Again, ignoring the garbled first part, differences will mean that on average some races do have edges in certain things. While of course, this says nothing about what race is superior or inferior (what would that mean anyway?), this is again tying a moral doctrine to a potentially true fact about the world. As does this definition: dictionary.com- a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, With the note that one's race has no bearing on any given individual's achievement, so that is perhaps the one falsehood that can be extracted for an otherwise valid empirical claim. And this definition: Webster - : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits Is again meaningless. All humans belong to some race (even if an admixed one) and are going to have traits that are found in his or her race. This is again tautological. If they mean to say all races have distinct traits, or that there is no overlap between traits, then this is true of some traits, and false with others. If we're talking about say, hair texture, "nappy" black hair is only found in sub-Saharan Africans and a few other groups, like Australoid peoples; where as colored hair, for the most part, is only found among whites. For most other traits, there is incredible overlap in bell curves, so that the old politically correct mantra that there is more variation within a group than there is between groups is true. Such is the case for traits like intelligence. usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. See above. What is the meaning for superiority? But honestly, defining racism as meaning "believing potentially true facts about race" is as silly as defining sexism as believing that there are no differences between the sexes. This would make anyone who profess the (correct) beliefs that men typically don't like to shop (unless there is hardware, electronics, sports gear or porn involved) and women typically don't enjoy sports. Or even more banal statements like women are shorter than men, on average. Does that make women inferior? but as this is an emerging field of sorts, and conclusions are not yet finalized I don't know what your rush is to lecture everyone on the latest HBD theories. No science is ever "finalized" as we can always stand to learn more. That doesn't mean we can't make statement about the world. This is a type of appeal to ignorance: because we don't know everything, we know nothing, which is obviously a fallacy. And this science is not really new, the evidence for race difference goes back nearly a century. And oddly enough, new evidence only continues to confirm the older findings. Could we stand to learn more? Yes. Do we know what genes are involved in creating in intelligence? Not all of them, no. Do we know exactly how the genes interplay with the environment to form the finished person? No. Can we still make statements of how heredity affects intelligence and other behavioral traits? Most certainly yes. We do have solid evidence for how genes affect intelligence and behavior, and we do know there are genetic difference between the races (obviously), and we have considerable evidence that genetic difference determine a great deal of the differences between the averages between the races. The facts that we have do not go away because we do not have all the facts (nor do they in any science). |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|