Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 377
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I had a caucasian friend from South Africa who accurately indicated on his SAT that he was "African American". He did fairly well (broke 1400 out of 1600). During his junior year of high school, he claimed that many prominent institutions, such as Harvard, made hilarious recruiting attempts. Needless to say, the fun abruptly ended after the representatives learned that he was white (much to their great disappointment).

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply saying all other factors are the same is unrealistic.

Unfortunately, the scientific method requires this. If we hold all variables the same, and change variable x, then whatever changes happened, we know they happened because of variable x, and no other variables. That is what we are trying to do, finding out how race by itself influences the degree to which a rational person would trust them.

It's not up to me to debunk the level of assumption you are placing between incarceration and trustworthiness, it's up to you to establish the relationship, and the extent to which one affects the other.
Do you honestly think there is 0 correlation between the two factors? If you do, I don't think any rational debate is possible with you, because you will slow me to an absurd degree, forcing me to prove everything that I think is common knowledge. But if you think there is even a 1% correlation, you would still be better off on average choosing the white guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you can't do is redefine the referents involved in the question. The question on the table is about race, and a specific claim has been made about members of a particular race. Rushton and those like him are guilty of sloppy science (I said he's not a nutcase, but he is sloppy), a major component of which is equivocation. So let's not equivocate. We've got a definition, so let's see whether the claim is true or false.

If there was any sloppiness, it was on my part, not on Rushton's, because I didn't provide the exact definition he was using. (It was not in the 2nd abridged edition, at least I could not find it.) It is in the 3rd, unabridged edition, though. As I suspected, only the word "most" was missing:

And a "Black" is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa.

Also, call it a hunch, but I think you will be disappointed if you think the results would not hold for Blacks who have 100% Black ancestors.

That's not my position. Rather, we know that cultural facts indisputable cause IQ test differences; you are claiming that there is an additional factor, and I will not accept that or any other arbitrary claim. It has to be proven. So I'm simply requiring you to present the evidence. And by evidence, I mean evidence, not "claims purported to support the claim". I'm talking about cold, hard facts of reality, the perceptually evident stuff. You should start a separate thread if you need further explanation of the logic of "burden of proof" issues.
I think you missed my point. How is the claim that "there are no genetic differences in the brains between the races" any more arbitrary than the claim that there are? The burden of proof lies with the one who makes a positive claim, but in this case, both positions are positive claims.

There is very little evidence that the brains are equal between the races, and much evidence that they are not, so I would say the egalitarian claim is much more arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, with this example, we're asked to visualize a situation where we know nothing about a person other than their race.

If I have made this claim, then that was a bad example. It is not necessary that you know nothing but the race, only that all the other factors are equal (this is very important). It is not important what the value of those factors are, we are only interested in the effect of race on your decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is very little evidence that the brains are equal between the races, and much evidence that they are not, so I would say the egalitarian claim is much more arbitrary.
Anyhow, I have no interest in debating rationalistic principles. I was under the impression that you intended to approach the matter from an informed scientific perspective so that we could focus on the actual facts, but if I was mistaken and you don't intent to look at the facts, then I don't think we have anything further to discuss. I might suggest that you look at chapter 5 of OPAR, in an attempt to understand the nature of arbitrary claims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, I have no interest in debating rationalistic principles. I was under the impression that you intended to approach the matter from an informed scientific perspective so that we could focus on the actual facts, but if I was mistaken and you don't intent to look at the facts, then I don't think we have anything further to discuss. I might suggest that you look at chapter 5 of OPAR, in an attempt to understand the nature of arbitrary claims.

That is not how I approached this problem, it is you who first started throwing the word "arbitrary" around. I'd love to discuss the evidence with you, but now that this has come up, you must admit that my claim is no more arbitrary than your claim. Otherwise, I don't think any rational discussion is possible with you on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the scientific method requires this.

Yes, but reality requires that a hypothetical be realistic if you intend to make some point about reality with it. Simply formulating a scenario doesn't mean you are applying the scientific method and saying "all other things are equal" does not mean you complied with reality or the scientific method. This debate is far from a scientific experiment.

If you do, I don't think any rational debate is possible with you, because you will slow me to an absurd degree, forcing me to prove everything that I think is common knowledge.

It's not my concern that you picked a hard premise to prove. Also, be careful about accusing people of being incapable of rational debate. That accusation can go both ways and it constitutes "attacking the person" and not the argument.

It's your premise, prove it or not but I'm not going to do your job for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not necessary that you know nothing but the race, only that all the other factors are equal (this is very important). It is not important what the value of those factors are, we are only interested in the effect of race on your decision.
Okay, that's a little better. However, it is insufficient. For instance, in the example I gave (of the priest) it would not be logical for him to opt for either the black person qua black person or for the white person qua white person. This is the problem with using factors that are correlated, but do not have a causal relationship.

One way of looking at it is that the people the priest is dealing with are not representative of the prison-population. So, it isn't merely a question of whether all other factors are equal, but whether current context matches the original one in which the correlation was measured. In a sense, this demonstrates why race is not a "factor", strictly speaking. If race was a causal factor, it would have some influence when all other factors are equal. It's clear that -- in the example I gave -- it isn't.

It is increasingly common for researchers in psychology to uses correlations; but correlations are only good to point to areas of interest. They can never be a sufficient basis for determining causation. Even a near 100% correlation does not establish causation.

(This does not mean that we cannot act on the basis of current knowlegde and best guesses; we definitely can and ought to when appropriate.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but reality requires that a hypothetical be realistic if you intend to make some point about reality with it. Simply formulating a scenario doesn't mean you are applying the scientific method and saying "all other things are equal" does not mean you complied with reality or the scientific method. This debate is far from a scientific experiment.
So you think it is impossible to have a situation where all other things you know about them are equal?

Let's say I'm explaining the law of demand to you. I say as the price of a good goes up, and all other factors equal, the quantity demanded decreases, and vice versa. If you are consistent, you would call this law nonsense, because after all, in reality, it is impossible that all other things remain equal.

Indeed, I don't see how you could derive any laws at all with this view: that keeping all other factors equal is impossible, therefore all theories based on it are nonsense.

It's not my concern that you picked a hard premise to prove. Also, be careful about accusing people of being incapable of rational debate. That accusation can go both ways and it constitutes "attacking the person" and not the argument.

It's your premise, prove it or not but I'm not going to do your job for you.

By accepting my accusation, you have implicitly answered yes to my question:

Do you honestly think there is 0 correlation between the two factors?
(The two factors being chance of going to prison and chance to be trustworthy)

That is the type of thing nobody has done studies on, and never will, because it is so ridiculously obvious. Unless you take that back, I'll not argue with you further, because if this is the type of claims you will require proof for, this will take too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, that's a little better. However, it is insufficient. For instance, in the example I gave (of the priest) it would not be logical for him to opt for either the black person qua black person or for the white person qua white person. This is the problem with using factors that are correlated, but do not have a causal relationship.

One way of looking at it is that the people the priest is dealing with are not representative of the prison-population. So, it isn't merely a question of whether all other factors are equal, but whether current context matches the original one in which the correlation was measured. In a sense, this demonstrates why race is not a "factor", strictly speaking. If race was a causal factor, it would have some influence when all other factors are equal. It's clear that -- in the example I gave -- it isn't.

Ok, I should have made this clearer. We're assuming that everything else you know about the person is equal, and that you don't know everything about that person. Otherwise, you'd be right of course, that it would be meaningless.

Would it now be logical for the pastor to say: "I'm going to trust the white guy with the collection bag, because more blacks go to prison"? I submit that, as worded, it would not be logical.
If he had the luxury of time, and the ability to get more information on the subjects, then you are right. But if he did not (which we have to assume), then it would be perfectly logical. Unless you, like RationalBiker, deny the correlation between % chance of going to prison, and % chance to be trustworthy?

It is increasingly common for researchers in psychology to uses correlations; but correlations are only good to point to areas of interest. They can never be a sufficient basis for determining causation. Even a near 100% correlation does not establish causation.

(This does not mean that we cannot act on the basis of current knowlegde and best guesses; we definitely can and ought to when appropriate.)

I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think it is impossible to have a situation where all other things you know about them are equal?

That's not what my statement says and I'm not chasing this red herring.

By accepting my accusation, you have implicitly answered yes to my question:

I have said nor implied "yes" to nothing. Your question and the accusation of irrationality are not package deals. By making note that you are accusing people of being incapable of rational argument or discussion I'm pointing out to you that you are violating the forum rules and that perhaps you are the one failing to bring rationality to this discussion. Instead of either of us making statements like that, its best to present and support your argument, not attack your opponent.

That is the type of thing nobody has done studies on, and never will, because it is so ridiculously obvious.

Who can argue against statements like that and terms like "common knowledge"? You can just proclaim victory now.

Unless you take that back, I'll not argue with you further

That's no skin off my back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say I'm explaining the law of demand to you. I say as the price of a good goes up, and all other factors equal, the quantity demanded decreases, and vice versa. If you are consistent, you would call this law nonsense, because after all, in reality, it is impossible that all other things remain equal.

Cournot's Law of Supply and Demand is fine. However, if you wish to apply it to a situation in reality when there are other, significant factors that are not equal then this is rationalism. This is a serious error. If an individual is honestly ignorant of some other important factor, then this is a honest mistake as the individual was essentially correct in the present context of his knowledge. However, if the individual assumes that all other factors are insignificant, not because he has reason to believe that they are insignificant (such as possessing a satisfying and all-encompassing causal explanation) but because he wants to prove a point then this is dangerous, ignorant and inconsistent with sound science.

In general, statistical correlations are essentially meaningless to me if either:

1.) One has not properly designed his experiment or has failed to sufficiently explain how his experiment was designed.

2.) One fails to identify a causal factor that would give good reason as to why these characteristics are correlated and knowing this correlation will not help guide researchers to discover previously unknown causalities.

Stating "Being in population P is highly correlated with possessing characteristic C" is nothing more than just a vague statement. What is the population where the sample came from? How was the sample taken? How do we truly define population P? How do we define characteristic C? Is there another population Q, that has a non-empty intersection with P and a non-empty intersection with notP that has an even higher correlation with characteristic C?

With regards to some specific claims bandied about on mainstream media such as "having a tendency to engage in violent crime is positively correlated with being black" or "high achievement in mathematics is negatively correlated with being female"; these statements are incredibly unsatisfying and often misleading. There are much more logical explanations for why individuals engage in violent crime or lack the mathematical training to do well on standardized tests than the color of their skin or gender.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said nor implied "yes" to nothing. Your question and the accusation of irrationality are not package deals.
That is exactly what it was. Hence the if -> then. I suggest re-reading it.

Cournot's Law of Supply and Demand is fine. However, if you wish to apply it to a situation in reality when there are other, significant factors that are not equal then this is rationalism. This is a serious error. If an individual is honestly ignorant of some other important factor, then this is a honest mistake as the individual was essentially correct in the present context of his knowledge. However, if the individual assumes that all other factors are insignificant, not because he has reason to believe that they are insignificant (such as possessing a satisfying and all-encompassing causal explanation) but because he wants to prove a point then this is dangerous, ignorant and inconsistent with sound science.
I'm not trying to apply this to a case where all else relevant is not equal, nor am I assuming that it is. I'm explicitly stating that it is. This is what my opponents don't agree with, they claim this is impossible.

Stating "Being in population P is highly correlated with possessing characteristic C" is nothing more than just a vague statement. What is the population where the sample came from? How was the sample taken? How do we truly define population P? How do we define characteristic C? Is there another population Q, that has a non-empty intersection with P and a non-empty intersection with notP that has an even higher correlation with characteristic C?
There is nothing vague about it, unless you think the test was done poorly. In the case of the % chance of going to prison correlation, I think the answers to your questions are pretty obvious, no?

With regards to some specific claims bandied about on mainstream media such as "having a tendency to engage in violent crime is positively correlated with being black" or "high achievement in mathematics is negatively correlated with being female"; these statements are incredibly unsatisfying and often misleading. There are much more logical explanations for why individuals engage in violent crime or lack the mathematical training to do well on standardized tests than the color of their skin or gender.
Strawman. I haven't met anyone who claimed girls are relatively bad at math because they have breasts, or blacks are more violent because they have a dark skin color. The claim would be that blacks are born with more testosterone, therefore they are more violent. Edited by Viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly what it was. Hence the if -> then. I suggest re-reading it.

Re-read it, still isn't.

I'm going to offer some biographical information as my exit to this part of the thread. I don't expect anyone to accept my experience as evidence to be used as weight for my argument, but moreso to explain that I have as much interest (if not more) in being able to make snap decisions about people with very little information. But I will say that my experience does tell me strongly to discount Viking's claim and hypothetical because I actually deal with situations that involve snap judgements and potential risks to my life and limb on a frequent basis. Suffice to say I'll stick to my "uncommon" knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

I have worked as a police officer and supervisor for 22 years in an urban environment that is 48% "white", 44% "black", with the rest of the racial make-up varied. On a daily basis I have come into contact with folks of each of these various races. Many of them have backgrounds that include incarceration and many do not. One thing I have gleaned from my contacts with people in general is that victims, suspects and witnesses, regardless of "color", all lie at times and all tell the truth at times. The extent to which they will lie certainly varies, but all of them do. Upon having contact with any given person, it is of NO VALUE to me to assume that any of them are more or less trustworthy based on the color of their skin. Whether I'm trying to get a statement, a confession, or simply trying to practice sound officer safety techniques so I can live through the night (or at least go home without serious injury), it is of absolutely NO VALUE to me to assume that I'm going to be safer with this person or that one, that one or the other is going to be more truthful, simply based on the color of their skin. I suspect it's more likely to be a hazard to operate on such "coorelations".

I have no benchmark to compare to other participants in this thread regarding how much of your lives can rest on such snap decisions or how frequently you come into potentially dangerous contacts with people, but I think I can at least assume an equal level of threat here when compared to your average forum user, and I suspect the risk is higher than most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing vague about it, unless you think the test was done poorly. In the case of the % chance of going to prison correlation, I think the answers to your questions are pretty obvious, no?

I am not sure what claim you are referring to.

The claim would be that blacks are born with more testosterone, therefore they are more violent.

So unless if you are going to subsequently argue that an essential or defining characteristic of being black is having an unusually higher amount of testosterone, this claim is still unjustified. This is especially true if legitimate and reliable empirical studies demonstrate:

1.) That black males with significantly less testosterone are less violent than blacks with high levels of testosterone.

2.) Non-black males with significantly more testosterone have greater violent tendencies than non-black males with lower levels of the aforesaid hormone.

If statements 1 and 2 are true, then it would be much more accurate to state that "individuals with unusually high levels of testosterone have greater violent tendencies."

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if one done those additional studies, the studies themselves would not present sufficient information to draw a cause and effect relationship. An essential aspect would be what we know about biology and testosterone.

Also, because of volition, describing certain human traits as being causes of certain human actions is always fraught with much more difficulty than making similar conclusions about non-living objects or even non-humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-read it, still isn't.
Ok, let me explain it.

I said:

Do you honestly think there is 0 correlation between the two factors? If you do, I don't think any rational debate is possible with you...

Then you say:

...be careful about accusing people of being incapable of rational debate. That accusation can go both ways and it constitutes "attacking the person" and not the argument.

My "accusation" was conditional, agreed?

Therefore, if you say it is an accusation, you are implicitly stating that the condition required for the accusation is true. Otherwise it wouldn't be an accusation.

For example, if I say "If you think 2 + 2 = 5, then you are stupid", and then my brother says "How dare you call me stupid!?", it is understood that he does in fact think 2 + 2= 5. That is why I say implicit: "Implied or understood even though not directly expressed." (www.austin.cc.tx.us/audit/Glossary/LetterI.htm)

I'm going to offer some biographical information as my exit to this part of the thread. I don't expect anyone to accept my experience as evidence to be used as weight for my argument, but moreso to explain that I have as much interest (if not more) in being able to make snap decisions about people with very little information. But I will say that my experience does tell me strongly to discount Viking's claim and hypothetical because I actually deal with situations that involve snap judgements and potential risks to my life and limb on a frequent basis. Suffice to say I'll stick to my "uncommon" knowledge. Your mileage may vary.

I have worked as a police officer and supervisor for 22 years in an urban environment that is 48% "white", 44% "black", with the rest of the racial make-up varied. On a daily basis I have come into contact with folks of each of these various races. Many of them have backgrounds that include incarceration and many do not. One thing I have gleaned from my contacts with people in general is that victims, suspects and witnesses, regardless of "color", all lie at times and all tell the truth at times. The extent to which they will lie certainly varies, but all of them do. Upon having contact with any given person, it is of NO VALUE to me to assume that any of them are more or less trustworthy based on the color of their skin. Whether I'm trying to get a statement, a confession, or simply trying to practice sound officer safety techniques so I can live through the night (or at least go home without serious injury), it is of absolutely NO VALUE to me to assume that I'm going to be safer with this person or that one, that one or the other is going to be more truthful, simply based on the color of their skin. I suspect it's more likely to be a hazard to operate on such "coorelations".

I have no benchmark to compare to other participants in this thread regarding how much of your lives can rest on such snap decisions or how frequently you come into potentially dangerous contacts with people, but I think I can at least assume an equal level of threat here when compared to your average forum user, and I suspect the risk is higher than most.

That is interesting. I think racial statistics can still be useful in your field though. Not when applying justice, like in a courtroom, or extracting confessions.

But what about when you get to a crime scene, and there are two people walking away from the crime scene, and you suspect one of them has incriminating evidence on them. Lets say you cannot detain them both. Which one do you choose to persue? In essence, what we're discussing is racial profiling. Do you have a problem when authorities do that at airports? If not, why not apply it in other cases?

Edited by Viking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure what claim you are referring to.

I was referring to you statement that I quoted right above:

Stating "Being in population P is highly correlated with possessing characteristic C" is nothing more than just a vague statement. What is the population where the sample came from? How was the sample taken? How do we truly define population P? How do we define characteristic C? Is there another population Q, that has a non-empty intersection with P and a non-empty intersection with notP that has an even higher correlation with characteristic C?

So unless if you are going to subsequently argue that an essential or defining characteristic of being black is having an unusually higher amount of testosterone, this claim is still unjustified.
But I am. According to the book, Blacks have 3%-19% more testosterone than whites. The correlation between testosterone levels and crime/violence is also shown in the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if one done those additional studies, the studies themselves would not present sufficient information to draw a cause and effect relationship. An essential aspect would be what we know about biology and testosterone.

Also, because of volition, describing certain human traits as being causes of certain human actions is always fraught with much more difficulty than making similar conclusions about non-living objects or even non-humans.

To be clear, what is your claim here, that volition operates outside the context of causality, or that we don't know how testosterone affects behavior? Or is it both?

The first would be a whole other topic, on which I would disagree with you.

In the case of the second, I would also disagree, and I can find plenty if evidence that more testosterone leads to more violence, if you require it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I can find plenty if evidence that more testosterone leads to more violence, if you require it.
I'm not disputing it. My point is that correlations are never enough and that's all those types of studies can provide. We know more about testosterone than simply that it is more likely that it exists in higher quantities in people who are violent than in those who aren't (assuming that that claim is true).

When one thinks about testosterone and violence, finding a correlation between the two may be a starting point. However, that's nowhere near an ending point. One is building a causal chain in one's mind: testosterone leading to some type of bodily change, that leading to some type of heightened predisposition, that leading to certain behavior. That's the only point I was making.

To be clear, what is your claim here, that volition operates outside the context of causality,...
I don't understand the question; but, I'll explain my point in a different way. Since man is volitional, many factors play into his actions. Just because certain people are "running at an above average rate" does not mean they will all be more likely to do more of any particular action (like being violent). Their values and their social context have a lot to do with it. So, one might find high-testosterone folk are more prone to be gang-members in one cultural population, while they are more likely to be stock market traders in another and school-dropout self-made businessmen in a third.

Take the IQ studies, for instance. The studies that claim to show blacks with a lower IQ are interesting. However, Marva Collins' students were mostly black and they performed way above the average white public-school kid. So, what happened to the blackness factor? My own experience with my kids, his friends, his classmates, and other kids tells me that a majority of kids can be taught to a level that will put them into the top 20% of their age group in things like achievement tests. So, of what relevance is it to me to know that if left to their devices, or if all were given excellent instruction, then some types of kids will do worse than others?

I don't question predispositions. Just as people are different physically, I'm comfortable assuming that they are different psychologically, emotionally and intellectually. However, except for some outliers, I have seen no evidence that the differences are enough to be important, in comparison to things like values, instructions, options (the so-called "nurture" factor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disputing it. My point is that correlations are never enough and that's all those types of studies can provide. We know more about testosterone than simply that it is more likely that it exists in higher quantities in people who are violent than in those who aren't (assuming that that claim is true).

When one thinks about testosterone and violence, finding a correlation between the two may be a starting point. However, that's nowhere near an ending point. One is building a causal chain in one's mind: testosterone leading to some type of bodily change, that leading to some type of heightened predisposition, that leading to certain behavior. That's the only point I was making.

You think there is only a correlation between testosterone and aggressive behavior? I think there is a causal relationship, even if a causal chain is required. How would differentiate between correlation and causality? Holding all other factors equal (all that is possible while changing testosterone, anyway), and changing testosterone levels. This has been done extensively on animals, no?

I don't understand the question; but, I'll explain my point in a different way. Since man is volitional, many factors play into his actions. Just because certain people are "running at an above average rate" does not mean they will all be more likely to do more of any particular action (like being violent). Their values and their social context have a lot to do with it. So, one might find high-testosterone folk are more prone to be gang-members in one cultural population, while they are more likely to be stock market traders in another and school-dropout self-made businessmen in a third.
It depends on the cultural context, sure, but the disposition is still very significant. Consider that the black crime rate is much higher compared to other races world wide, as shown in the study.

Take the IQ studies, for instance. The studies that claim to show blacks with a lower IQ are interesting. However, Marva Collins' students were mostly black and they performed way above the average white public-school kid. So, what happened to the blackness factor? My own experience with my kids, his friends, his classmates, and other kids tells me that a majority of kids can be taught to a level that will put them into the top 20% of their age group in things like achievement tests. So, of what relevance is it to me to know that if left to their devices, or if all were given excellent instruction, then some types of kids will do worse than others?
I tried to tell you this before a few pages back: you missed an important detail in that study. In these good homes, whites and orientals did significantly better than their average as well, so the IQ gap was still there to virtually the same degree.

I don't question predispositions. Just as people are different physically, I'm comfortable assuming that they are different psychologically, emotionally and intellectually. However, except for some outliers, I have seen no evidence that the differences are enough to be important, in comparison to things like values, instructions, options (the so-called "nurture" factor).
Then how do you explain that the trends are world wide, such as the crime rate mentioned above?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, let me explain it.

Sigh... You are still wrong. Let me explain it to you...

Here's your original statement (which looks more like argument from intimidation now that I think about it);

Do you honestly think there is 0 correlation between the two factors? If you do, I don't think any rational debate is possible with you, because you will slow me to an absurd degree, forcing me to prove everything that I think is common knowledge.

First, I never said nor implied that there was zero coorelation. What I have said (in so many words) is that whatever coorelation there may be is meaningless to me, and that your 60% figure is questionable due a large number of factors involving honesty and incarceration and their relationship.

But for the sake of demonstrating why your accusation is not logically conditional let's assume that I do hold that position CURRENTLY. The test of my inability to hold rational conversation with you on the topic is NOT dependent on whether I CURRENTLY hold that position and it would take you a long time to present your case. Rather, it's dependent on whether in the face of factual evidence (something you don't want to go into) I would CONTINUE to hold that position. The fact that you have chosen a premise which might be long and hard for you to establish has NAUGHT to do with my ability to hold a rational discussion. Plus, what you THINK my be "common knowledge" does not necessarily mean that what you think is true. You are trying to attribute your lack of desire (or whatever) to establish a complicated premise with my inability to accept it if factual proven. It doesn't work that way, the ball is still in your court.

So rather than address my statement;

It's not up to me to debunk the level of assumption you are placing between incarceration and trustworthiness, it's up to you to establish the relationship, and the extent to which one affects the other.

you come up with a distraction by questioning a position I have never took and add the intimidation of irrationality afterwards.

So since it appears that you don't seem to understand that attacking other users in such a manner will not be tolerated on this forum, I'll try a little intimidation of my own. If you do it again (to me or anyone else), or persist in the accusation that I'm incapable of rational discussion, I will formally warn you and place you on moderator preview.

But what about when you get to a crime scene, and there are two people walking away from the crime scene, and you suspect one of them has incriminating evidence on them. Lets say you cannot detain them both. Which one do you choose to persue?

Haha, I have to laugh at this. We are at the point we are now because I have a problem with your first hypothetical, and as I have said in the past I have a problem with hypotheticals in general. Now you are posing another hypothetical with such scant context that I can't believe you actually expect me to answer it. That's just too funny.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the definition I use is the one in the dictionary, but I confess that that doesn't make it the right one. However, in any sociology class, I think that's the definition they'll teach.

I see your point about blacks, although I think that blacks from Africa are probably still stronger and more athletic than whites, given proper nutrition of course. I admit that I don't have any hard data on this, but I think it can be inferred from evolution, in that Africa is a physically harsher region of the world than anything whites have had to deal with. Also, I'm pretty sure the reason the reason the Europeans began the African slave trade was that the Africans were generally strong.

The statement that Europeans began the slave trade with Africans is simply untrue!

Africans were enslaving each other for millenia before European slavery began in a significant way. There were many Black (Nubian and Ethiopian) slaves in Pharonic Egypt, for example.

There also was an extensive slave-trade prosecuted by Moslems against BOTH Black Africans and White Europeans, with the added point that the religious differences between Moslem and Christian, along with the perennial military conflicts, (against the Christian Copts in Egypt, against the Byzantines, against Greeks, Albanians, Andalusians, Franks, Sicilians, and even, when they could get away with it, with Northern Europeans!! These religious differences often incited the Muslims to far worse cruelty and viciousness to their White Slaves then they were to blacks.

There were, of course counter-atrocities on the part of White Christians at the time (e.g. the Crusades) but it doesn't change the fact that White Christians were the last, not the first to engage in the barbarity of Chattel Slavery, and the FIRST to really try to suppress the Global Slave trade!!

I remember our favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, said something about the evil of accepting the burden of undeserved guilt.

PEACE AND FREEDOM

dkmeller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...