You have a choice not to read their website, and people are free to form their own opinions. They don't need to be babied when reading certain ideologies (what, are you afraid that people are going to turn into Nazis after reading Corrupt.org?).
Does it also bother you that Corrupt supports black nationalism, Tibetan nationalism, and Jewish nationalism (in the tradition of Rabbi Mier Kahane)? Oh wait, its only bad when whites try to assert their ethnic identity.
None. Being a racist does not mean being an asshole to people of different backgrounds. Playing mind games with social stigma will not work.
Acknowledging that, hey, humans spent quite a lot of time apart geographically, long enough to develop genetic differences as adaptations to their environments is a matter of fact. Saying that, if we're different, we're likely to produce different culture is just a matter of pragmatism. I'm pragmatic. I want my people to succeed and want everyone else to prosper to the best of their ability. But, putting people of different backgrounds together causes conflict. Some people do things one way while others do things a different way. Saying that one group should forcibly accept the practices of another is akin to colonialism.
Why do you insist on displaying your own ignorance?
What ignorance? You keep giving me this label, yet you can't substantiate it. I have answered you and the claims within with a scholarly article. In light of this, you can only call me "ignorant" thereafter. That indicates that you, perhaps, are the one who is ignorant.
You've obviously not studied the link I gave - or you're trying your best to lie with regards to its contents.
Go for it. Attack me instead of the argument I make. Show the world what you're made of.
Thus, you're promoting a racist agenda.
What is wrong with the agenda I have explicitly stated, or are you trying to somehow convince everyone that I am a racial supremacist, which I have explicitly denied and condemned as an ideology?
You are obviously trying to attach negative stigma to me (rather than continuing the argument on a rational and scientific basis), so you might as well just go out and say it.
Wouldn't I be just as much of a racist if I said I was opposed to the slaughter of indigenous American tribes by my own ancestors, on the basis that it, for all practical purposes, destroyed their way of life?
"The difference between you and a parent are much much smaller than the difference between you and someone of a different race." You said that with no evidence whatsoever
Really, the difference between me and a random person from China or Africa is less than the difference between me and one of my two parents? Is this what you are saying? What sane person needs proof to the contrary?
Your source consists of repeated arguments from Lewontin in 1972.
From your other reply I conclude that you have a racist agenda
I do not promote racial supremacy, if that is what you are implying. My agenda is the promotion of traditional societies based on ancestral heritage and the cultural foundations that have been destroyed by multiculturalism and ethnic pluralism.
Your argumentative flaw is that anyone who believes in racial differences has some sort of agenda of race hate when on the contrary, I deeply admire the many cultures of the world and do not want to see their culture destroyed by globalism.
feel free to keep living in ignorance
Is this the best you have - name calling?
The "thing" you felt was unanswered was only unanswered due to you not understanding what you read.
Explain it to me. I think AWF Edwards did a fine job, personally.
Summary
In popular articles that play down the genetical differences
among human populations, it is often stated that
about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to
individual differences within populations and only 15%
to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It
has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo
sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic
data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is
unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact
that most of the information that distinguishes populations
is hidden in the correlation structure of the data
and not simply in the variation of the individual factors.
The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early
years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple
genetical example. BioEssays 25:798-801, 2003.
2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
I did not say that. Race implies a large and distinct set of differences between two groups. The difference between you and a parent are much much smaller than the difference between you and someone of a different race.
That paper does not answer my claim. How are individual genetic differences between people of the same race as significant as the differences between people of different races?
The flaw in this statement is saying that any genetic "difference" has the same meaning. There are plenty of variations, for example, within any racial group. However, those variations are of a smaller distance apart than the variations between people of different races.
As I said in another post, the difference between orange and red is very small, but the difference between orange and blue is greater. But, according to your logic, any difference has the same weight, which is bogus. If genetic differences had equal meaning, then you would never be able to tell races apart.
Geneticists have known for years that, at a genetic level, "race" almost doesn't exist.
What geneticists are saying this? That is most certainly not a prevailing opinion within the scientific community. It may be one in the sociology community, but not within the field of human biology.
The genetic differences between each race are so superficial that they're very difficult to spot unless you know exactly what you're looking for.
The genetic differences are indeed subtle, but yet they most obviously produce varying results!
There are a few minor exceptions of course, but so far they're all pretty trivial. For example, many asians can't synthesise the enzyme "alchohol dehydrogenase" (and therefore can't process alchohol the same way as others); also, the American FDA thinks that the heart drug BiDil is better for black people than other races.
Or the IQ gap. East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs. Asians have a collectivist psychology, while Northern Europeans have a very individualistic psychology. Asians have eyes with epicanthic folds. There is also differences in the shape of craniums.
Really, I can go on and on with this. You have no clue what you are talking about. Differences exist.
However, the variation *within* each race and the overlap between races are huge. From a biologist's viewpoint, colour really is only skin deep.
Color is not race. The genetic distance between people of the same race is much less than the distance between people of different races. Differences != distance. That is like saying the difference between any two colors is the same, but obviously orange and yellow are much closer to each other than orange and blue.
Umm, NO. These DNA tests do not test the entire DNA sequence, they only test a few points. Given that humans share at least 90+% of DNA, it is possible that a flawed analysis of DNA will come to the conclusion that, geez, we're the same. I'm not an expert on how the testing works, but they definitely do not test the entire DNA.
If there is no such thing as racial differences, then couldn't the same logic be used to say that there are no differences between humans at all? Your logic doesn't make much sense. Genetic differences between the races exist, just as much as there are differences between you, your siblings, your parents, and etc. Its just a matter of distance.
israel is a perfect example of a state that sponsors terrorism.
i don't have a problem with israelis fighting for their interests, just as much as I don't have a problem with arabs (including palestinians) fighting their own interests. but, with that said, israel isn't on the moral high ground here. they have done their share of things that meet the definition of terrorism.. they've done multiple false-flag operations against the US (think USS Liberty) to try to provoke us to attack the Egyptians and the king david hotel bombing come to mind here.
how come israel isn't subject to inspections on its nuclear stockpile?
so in this sense, its hard to see how israel is any more legitimate or illegitimate than iran or other ME states.
Strange, all the racial science I knew of never found a link between race and intelligence. Unless, of course, you mean studies that ignored cultural and economic differences, etc.
Cultural and economic differences have been included, as well. This argument really holds no weight anymore. Why do East Asian immigrants from impoverished backgrounds do so well in such a short period of time? Explain that one away.
Yes, "culture" and "education" are important and have an effect, but the effect is only marginal as compared to the effect of inheritance of genetic traits.
Its analogous to the idea of weightlifting to build muscle mass - you can lift weights to improve your muscle mass, but there will always be people who have the capability to build bigger muscles than you, no matter how hard you work. The same applies to intelligence.
For example, African Americans as a race are much less accomplished academically, but if you look for genetic markers of mixed race with whites (not just skin pigmentation but a full comparison), you see no influence of race.
I don't understand this statement. Mixed race people include traits from both genetic lines. The traits do not disappear.
Or if you control for wealth, education of parents, etc. the differences disappear also
No, they don't.
African-Americans do about as well as white trash, who have similar problems of poverty.
Poor whites do better than similar (income, education) black ones. There was a recent study about how poor whites do much better than poor blacks on standardized tests and in academic achievement. The sad thing is that the black schools probably get more attention as far as grants and dispensations than the rural white schools do.
I'm not exactly sure why you put intelligence in quotes, as if it doesn't really exist, which would imply that you don't believe there is such a thing a cognitive ability to rationally organize information.
Asian people have skin pigment. Contrary to modern sociological thought, the races differ in ways other than just skin color and the people who argue for racial differences do not do so on the basis of skin color.
Pretty much all the racial science out there remarks the same conclusion that East Asian populations are more intelligent than Caucasian ones. They also remark that Ashkenazi Jews are probably the most intelligent people on Earth.
Eugenics has a bad rap because it's been throughly disproven as complete pseudoscience.
No, it has not. There is mountains and mountains of scientific study showing that many traits, including intelligence, are highly heritable.
That's not eugenics... That's just genetic screening.
Yes, that is eugenics.
Eugenics is the process of sterilizing "lesser" peoples
No, it is not. Eugenics has never been about oppressing minorities or disabled people. Eugenics has been about encouraging people with the most desirable traits to breed. What you describe is not eugenics - it is, as you say, sterilization and euthanasia. That is not eugenics.
What happens when everyone on the planet is selecting their unborn children for intelligence, only to find out that our current established theory of what genetic traits lead to intelligence turn out to be wrong, and the world is filled with a generation of mentally handicapped children?
Except that, two intelligent parents are highly likely, according to well-established science, to have similarlly intelligent offspring if they breed.
How are they "sure" you didn't do anything? There seems to be a rather disturbing leap of faith here in assuming that someone wouldn't do something nefarious before they turn in their notice.
Treating employees like dirt isn't "professional". We've all accepted the mentality of loyalty to the system rather than questioning the inherently humane character of it.
Again, if I wanted to cause damage, I would have done it before putting in my notice. Treating employees like shit means you get shit in return.
There is plenty of time for me to be "not so nice" before I give my notice. Being reactionary with the access only further burns the bridge of respect between the employer and the employee who wants to "pass the torch" as best he can to the replacement.
Any company that plays these games with me will find that I become tight-lipped and short of knowledge when they come asking for help. Treat me with respect and I'll be more than happy to smooth things out.
If they're going to restrict your ability to perform your job the last few weeks you're going to be working there, there isn't much point in keeping you around.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that The Bell Curve was co-written by a Jew, correct?
The Bell Curve is a justification for promoting intelligent people to higher places in society, not a pattern for mass murder and genocide.
You have a choice not to read their website, and people are free to form their own opinions. They don't need to be babied when reading certain ideologies (what, are you afraid that people are going to turn into Nazis after reading Corrupt.org?).
Does it also bother you that Corrupt supports black nationalism, Tibetan nationalism, and Jewish nationalism (in the tradition of Rabbi Mier Kahane)? Oh wait, its only bad when whites try to assert their ethnic identity.
Please try paying more attention in the future.
None. Being a racist does not mean being an asshole to people of different backgrounds. Playing mind games with social stigma will not work.
Acknowledging that, hey, humans spent quite a lot of time apart geographically, long enough to develop genetic differences as adaptations to their environments is a matter of fact. Saying that, if we're different, we're likely to produce different culture is just a matter of pragmatism. I'm pragmatic. I want my people to succeed and want everyone else to prosper to the best of their ability. But, putting people of different backgrounds together causes conflict. Some people do things one way while others do things a different way. Saying that one group should forcibly accept the practices of another is akin to colonialism.
http://slashdot.org/~burnitdown/journal/209417.
Why do you keep calling me a racist with the obvious intent to apply a negative stigma to me?
Why do you insist on displaying your own ignorance?
What ignorance? You keep giving me this label, yet you can't substantiate it. I have answered you and the claims within with a scholarly article. In light of this, you can only call me "ignorant" thereafter. That indicates that you, perhaps, are the one who is ignorant.
You've obviously not studied the link I gave - or you're trying your best to lie with regards to its contents.
Go for it. Attack me instead of the argument I make. Show the world what you're made of.
Thus, you're promoting a racist agenda.
What is wrong with the agenda I have explicitly stated, or are you trying to somehow convince everyone that I am a racial supremacist, which I have explicitly denied and condemned as an ideology?
You are obviously trying to attach negative stigma to me (rather than continuing the argument on a rational and scientific basis), so you might as well just go out and say it.
Wouldn't I be just as much of a racist if I said I was opposed to the slaughter of indigenous American tribes by my own ancestors, on the basis that it, for all practical purposes, destroyed their way of life?
"The difference between you and a parent are much much smaller than the difference between you and someone of a different race." You said that with no evidence whatsoever
Really, the difference between me and a random person from China or Africa is less than the difference between me and one of my two parents? Is this what you are saying? What sane person needs proof to the contrary?
You said that with no evidence whatsoever. In the other thread, another poster refuted that claim.
perhaps you missed this.
the other poster's "refutation" consists of calling me names. if this is what passes for scientific inquiry on slashdot, then be my guest...
You then started going on about semantics.
Yes, a technical argument about genetic differences is totally bogus. I'm sorry.
You're asserting that biologists assert that some people have 'collectivist psychology'?
Really? Where did I do such a thing?
I asserted it myself, based on observation of Eastern vs. Western cultures.
I'm fairly certain it is you who have no idea what you're talking about.
Perhaps basic literacy is needed before you make such a claim.
My source is from 2007.
Your source consists of repeated arguments from Lewontin in 1972.
From your other reply I conclude that you have a racist agenda
I do not promote racial supremacy, if that is what you are implying. My agenda is the promotion of traditional societies based on ancestral heritage and the cultural foundations that have been destroyed by multiculturalism and ethnic pluralism.
Your argumentative flaw is that anyone who believes in racial differences has some sort of agenda of race hate when on the contrary, I deeply admire the many cultures of the world and do not want to see their culture destroyed by globalism.
feel free to keep living in ignorance
Is this the best you have - name calling?
The "thing" you felt was unanswered was only unanswered due to you not understanding what you read.
Explain it to me. I think AWF Edwards did a fine job, personally.
I did not say that. Race implies a large and distinct set of differences between two groups. The difference between you and a parent are much much smaller than the difference between you and someone of a different race.
Don't put words into my mouth.
That paper does not answer my claim. How are individual genetic differences between people of the same race as significant as the differences between people of different races?
Wrong.
The flaw in this statement is saying that any genetic "difference" has the same meaning. There are plenty of variations, for example, within any racial group. However, those variations are of a smaller distance apart than the variations between people of different races.
As I said in another post, the difference between orange and red is very small, but the difference between orange and blue is greater. But, according to your logic, any difference has the same weight, which is bogus. If genetic differences had equal meaning, then you would never be able to tell races apart.
Geneticists have known for years that, at a genetic level, "race" almost doesn't exist.
What geneticists are saying this? That is most certainly not a prevailing opinion within the scientific community. It may be one in the sociology community, but not within the field of human biology.
The genetic differences between each race are so superficial that they're very difficult to spot unless you know exactly what you're looking for.
The genetic differences are indeed subtle, but yet they most obviously produce varying results!
There are a few minor exceptions of course, but so far they're all pretty trivial. For example, many asians can't synthesise the enzyme "alchohol dehydrogenase" (and therefore can't process alchohol the same way as others); also, the American FDA thinks that the heart drug BiDil is better for black people than other races.
Or the IQ gap. East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQs. Asians have a collectivist psychology, while Northern Europeans have a very individualistic psychology. Asians have eyes with epicanthic folds. There is also differences in the shape of craniums.
Really, I can go on and on with this. You have no clue what you are talking about. Differences exist.
However, the variation *within* each race and the overlap between races are huge. From a biologist's viewpoint, colour really is only skin deep.
Color is not race. The genetic distance between people of the same race is much less than the distance between people of different races. Differences != distance. That is like saying the difference between any two colors is the same, but obviously orange and yellow are much closer to each other than orange and blue.
You do not speak for biologists.
Umm, NO. These DNA tests do not test the entire DNA sequence, they only test a few points. Given that humans share at least 90+% of DNA, it is possible that a flawed analysis of DNA will come to the conclusion that, geez, we're the same. I'm not an expert on how the testing works, but they definitely do not test the entire DNA.
If there is no such thing as racial differences, then couldn't the same logic be used to say that there are no differences between humans at all? Your logic doesn't make much sense. Genetic differences between the races exist, just as much as there are differences between you, your siblings, your parents, and etc. Its just a matter of distance.
israel is a perfect example of a state that sponsors terrorism.
i don't have a problem with israelis fighting for their interests, just as much as I don't have a problem with arabs (including palestinians) fighting their own interests. but, with that said, israel isn't on the moral high ground here. they have done their share of things that meet the definition of terrorism.. they've done multiple false-flag operations against the US (think USS Liberty) to try to provoke us to attack the Egyptians and the king david hotel bombing come to mind here.
how come israel isn't subject to inspections on its nuclear stockpile?
so in this sense, its hard to see how israel is any more legitimate or illegitimate than iran or other ME states.
Strange, all the racial science I knew of never found a link between race and intelligence. Unless, of course, you mean studies that ignored cultural and economic differences, etc.
Cultural and economic differences have been included, as well. This argument really holds no weight anymore. Why do East Asian immigrants from impoverished backgrounds do so well in such a short period of time? Explain that one away.
Yes, "culture" and "education" are important and have an effect, but the effect is only marginal as compared to the effect of inheritance of genetic traits.
Its analogous to the idea of weightlifting to build muscle mass - you can lift weights to improve your muscle mass, but there will always be people who have the capability to build bigger muscles than you, no matter how hard you work. The same applies to intelligence.
For example, African Americans as a race are much less accomplished academically, but if you look for genetic markers of mixed race with whites (not just skin pigmentation but a full comparison), you see no influence of race.
I don't understand this statement. Mixed race people include traits from both genetic lines. The traits do not disappear.
Or if you control for wealth, education of parents, etc. the differences disappear also
No, they don't.
African-Americans do about as well as white trash, who have similar problems of poverty.
Poor whites do better than similar (income, education) black ones. There was a recent study about how poor whites do much better than poor blacks on standardized tests and in academic achievement. The sad thing is that the black schools probably get more attention as far as grants and dispensations than the rural white schools do.
IQ test.
I'm not exactly sure why you put intelligence in quotes, as if it doesn't really exist, which would imply that you don't believe there is such a thing a cognitive ability to rationally organize information.
Asian people have skin pigment. Contrary to modern sociological thought, the races differ in ways other than just skin color and the people who argue for racial differences do not do so on the basis of skin color.
Pretty much all the racial science out there remarks the same conclusion that East Asian populations are more intelligent than Caucasian ones. They also remark that Ashkenazi Jews are probably the most intelligent people on Earth.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Eugenics has a bad rap because it's been throughly disproven as complete pseudoscience.
No, it has not. There is mountains and mountains of scientific study showing that many traits, including intelligence, are highly heritable.
That's not eugenics... That's just genetic screening.
Yes, that is eugenics.
Eugenics is the process of sterilizing "lesser" peoples
No, it is not. Eugenics has never been about oppressing minorities or disabled people. Eugenics has been about encouraging people with the most desirable traits to breed. What you describe is not eugenics - it is, as you say, sterilization and euthanasia. That is not eugenics.
What happens when everyone on the planet is selecting their unborn children for intelligence, only to find out that our current established theory of what genetic traits lead to intelligence turn out to be wrong, and the world is filled with a generation of mentally handicapped children?
Except that, two intelligent parents are highly likely, according to well-established science, to have similarlly intelligent offspring if they breed.
How are they "sure" you didn't do anything? There seems to be a rather disturbing leap of faith here in assuming that someone wouldn't do something nefarious before they turn in their notice.
Treating employees like dirt isn't "professional". We've all accepted the mentality of loyalty to the system rather than questioning the inherently humane character of it.
Again, if I wanted to cause damage, I would have done it before putting in my notice. Treating employees like shit means you get shit in return.
There is plenty of time for me to be "not so nice" before I give my notice. Being reactionary with the access only further burns the bridge of respect between the employer and the employee who wants to "pass the torch" as best he can to the replacement.
Any company that plays these games with me will find that I become tight-lipped and short of knowledge when they come asking for help. Treat me with respect and I'll be more than happy to smooth things out.
If they're going to restrict your ability to perform your job the last few weeks you're going to be working there, there isn't much point in keeping you around.
Which is really dumb. If I want to hurt the company, I'll do it before I give notice.