Racism and dogs...

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok, so here is what I don't get about DNA, mutations, races, offspring, yadda yadda, and all that.

So, I live in a world of humans. Living in this world of humans, I have after a while started to see some characteristics in these humans. I have been able to quite often make predictions of their behavior, solely based on their looks and heritage.

I am of course a dirty rotten racist.

So, I live in the world of dogs. Living in this world of dogs, I have after a while started to see some characteristics in these dogs. I have been able to quite often make predictions of their behavior, solely based on their looks and heritage.

I am of course the average dog owner.




So what is my point?

This may not be a problem in other countries, I don't know. But here in Sweden these two factors are... incompatible. It came to the degree where I ponder if I could face prosecution based on what I have written just now.

So what does people think?

Where I am, I am pretty damn close to going to jail just for saying "races" unless I talk about dogs.

What's up with this? Am I the only one thinking it doesn't seem very... logical?

[Kadagar_AV]

There ARE as many differences between blacks and whites, as it is between whites and whites (or yellows and white or whatever).

However, bear in mind, and this is where it gets important, it's not the SAME differences.

IE, an somalis and a japanese have some 5000 hard programmed factors they share in random.

However, ALL somalis have this +dna factor of might is right... Whereas ALL japanese have this factor of "the winner is the one with the best case".

Even though they share much in common, even though their differences can be mended with enough time and procreation... And even though the difference is so small that it only activates in even a MINORITY of the population... It is still enough to create very different societys.

And know what? There are differences. Not just the colour of skin, but on the very basic DNA levels.

[Papewaio]

Normally skin colour of dogs doesn't determine our perception of its breed.

For instance Labradors come in mainly blond or black. Both main types are Labradors.

So I wouldn't use skin colour as the basis of racial division.

[Kadagar_AV]

Normally skin colour of dogs doesn't determine our perception of its breed.

For instance Labradors come in mainly blond or black. Both main types are Labradors.

So I wouldn't use skin colour as the basis of racial division.

Who would?

It's not like an albino negro is less negroid, is it?

Racial divisions are best estimated in the actual divisions. No?

[Major Robert Dump]

JUSTICE FOR AVON

[Papewaio]

Who would?

It's not like an albino negro is less negroid, is it?

Racial divisions are best estimated in the actual divisions. No?

It's a nature/Nuture divide as well.

You can see big differences in a family simply with country vs city raised cousins of a similar age group.

Sure, similar genetics but different outcomes.

Also the differences between siblings can be quite marked. So it isn't simply genetics, culture, family or society.

Our genetics alone mean we have 23 pairs of chromosomes of which on average you will share half with your siblings. And that doesn't even take into account which of the genes get activated and in which sequence.

People are highly complex machines.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's a nature/Nuture divide as well.

You can see big differences in a family simply with country vs city raised cousins of a similar age group.

Sure, similar genetics but different outcomes.

Also the differences between siblings can be quite marked. So it isn't simply genetics, culture, family or society.

Our genetics alone mean we have 23 pairs of chromosomes of which on average you will share half with your siblings. And that doesn't even take into account which of the genes get activated and in which sequence.

People are highly complex machines.

Uh...

Rubbish.

Sorry... That came off as rude unintended. I meant to say that what you wrote was complete ****, intended.

Yes "people are complex machines". But with that said, two siblings will generally have a DNA structure WAY more attuned than any one of them separately would have with some random guy from some other continent.

Much like a white guy would make a rather safe bet if he bet his DNA would more resemble another white guy than a yellow guy.

Can we move on from the stuff you are supposed to have understood from having a brain, or are we going to sidetrack this into a discussion of your educational system?

[Kadagar_AV]

I think the neurological differences between cultures caused by the differences in language groups is far more interesting, if you want to talk about what makes people different from eachother.

So, so... That is indeed an interesting field of research, but as of yet, if you are result oriented - I would bear with me.

However, nah, that isn't the point of the OP. My point of the OP is that science (at least in some countries?) have a ban on even remotely touching anything Goodwin.

What happened to "information wants to be free"?

I don't care if science would prove that this specific African tribe pretty much has the best damn DNA. All I care for is to let science be science, without political agendas.

I am so, so, so SO, SO against all kinds of limitations of the human mind. Science and popular results have already proven in everyone's eyes that Negroes jump higher and run faster.

This is also accepted knowledge around the world.

If science as easily could prove they are more stupid than the rest of the population of the world, would that be seen with as loving eyes?

Or is it that being rather stupid as a race have so many historical connotations even in this modern day that the thought is inexcusable?

[Ironside]

So, so... That is indeed an interesting field of research, but as of yet, if you are result oriented - I would bear with me.

However, nah, that isn't the point of the OP. My point of the OP is that science (at least in some countries?) have a ban on even remotely touching anything Goodwin.

From a scientific viewpoint, it's very hard to differentiate between cultural upbringing and genetical factors, in particular since the first one is much stronger when looking at a group (that's why different cities got different attitudes for example). And pure genetical research hasn't reached that level yet and an fully accurate research would probably involve many clinical trials, that would be unetical (you'll need a lot of orphans for that).

But such reasearch is done regularly, it's not common as newspaper material though.

It'll also be very abused since people don't know what the data really means. Basically you got 2 factors, mean and spread. The mean is easy enough, they peak at different values. With the same spread it would mean most in the edges. Taking the US as an example, that would mean a lot more "asians" are top scoring and more blacks are in the bottom rung. Easy enough, but in the middle, where most people are, the differences are almost unnotable. A higher spread can be seen with left-handed vs right-handed. Lefties are more topscoring and also more retarded than the Righties.

Now add social pressure. The left left or sinister (latin for left) left would of course be scoring as normal while they were being oppressed historically correct?

I am so, so, so SO, SO against all kinds of limitations of the human mind. Science and popular results have already proven in everyone's eyes that Negroes jump higher and run faster.

This is also accepted knowledge around the world.

Here's another possible example. Does black people dominate high jump? NO. My suspicion is that you're refering to basketball, where the US team is usually very black and used to be superdominating, while they can lose to say Spain or Lithuania nowadays. So why does the US basketball looks like it does? Because it was much more popular in the US compared to the rest of the world and got promoted to blacks when the sport was very young -> the sport blacks could and would seriously compete in -> established as a black sport -> blacks taking the sport seriously completely outnumber the whites in the US.

So it's a hard field, a place where you need to tread carefully and you'll find yourself working the same field as a bunch of pseudoscientists, that does have a political axe to grind. So, no not a big field.

I'm also not sure how much use it has, since it's a backtrack from an induvidual level, making the picture more grainy (first rule of prejudices are that they are very rarely spot-on, more of a better than average guesses, those times they are somewhat correct).

[a completely inoffensive name]

You made me think Kad came back

[Pannonian]

Both this and Fringemantra are old members with alt accounts, I'd guess.

[Kadagar_AV]

You made me think Kad came back

No [pending] Sherlock.

*please do note the absolute top thread*

[Fragony]

lol hi Kds wb, how are you and your significant self doing