Racial differences...

[Centurion1]

because it invariably turns into social darwinism. Race A is smarter than Race B, etc.

dont ge tme wrong im a fan of letting all facts be known but that is inevitably always what happens

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

because it invariably turns into social darwinism. Race A is smarter than Race B, etc.

dont ge tme wrong im a fan of letting all facts be known but that is inevitably always what happens

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

[Centurion1]

I don't disagree I'm just stating opponenets to this informations position

[Kadagar_AV]

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

Kind of sums it up.

Very well said :)

[Reenk Roink]

To be honest, I don't understand why there is such an aversion to admitting that people from one place are predisposed to be better at something than people from another. It's quite clear that the human species has adapted to different environments and diverged in some fairly marked ways.

Well here's the kicker. It's the environmental factors that play a big part, and people sometimes fall into the trap of interpreting them as more 'inherent' differences.

Take Canada and hockey for example. Despite NHL hockey really being opened up for over 20 years in the US and Eastern Europe, the Canadians still dominate in terms of talent and depth. Team Canada's B team this Olympic year would probably be the 2nd best team. And they could roll out a C team that could easily compete with Team USA in talent. This despite the huge population difference (ditto on a smaller scale for nations like Finland vs Russia).

Another example, I remember reading about how 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans don't do as well in their standardized tests as the first generation (indulge my sloppiness in not providing a citation, I read it a while back, you can google it). It kinda throws away any kind of genetic/biological reason for the disparity (as if the socioeconomic status of the Black and Latino minorities was not enough).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well here's the kicker. It's the environmental factors that play a big part, and people sometimes fall into the trap of interpreting them as more 'inherent' differences.

Take Canada and hockey for example. Despite NHL hockey really being opened up for over 20 years in the US and Eastern Europe, the Canadians still dominate in terms of talent and depth. Team Canada's B team this Olympic year would probably be the 2nd best team. And they could roll out a C team that could easily compete with Team USA in talent. This despite the huge population difference (ditto on a smaller scale for nations like Finland vs Russia).

Another example, I remember reading about how 3rd and 4th generation Asian Americans don't do as well in their standardized tests as the first generation (indulge my sloppiness in not providing a citation, I read it a while back, you can google it). It kinda throws away any kind of genetic/biological reason for the disparity (as if the socioeconomic status of the Black and Latino minorities was not enough).

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

[Reenk Roink]

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

And yet we have tons of evidence suggesting environment plays the role (it's not the Asianess of the people that is getting them to outdo everyone else on standardized tests but rather the correlation seems to be how long they have been in the country) and none for race (aside from some abstract graph and some hand waving... )

If the Asianess of people plays a factor, why did their scores match up with non-Asians after living a long time in the country? This suggests that environment plays the role, to the exemptions of race considerations.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If environment plays enough of a role that it covers up any racial differences, then those racial differences are insignificant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And yet we have tons of evidence suggesting environment plays the role (it's not the Asianess of the people that is getting them to outdo everyone else on standardized tests but rather the correlation seems to be how long they have been in the country) and none for race (aside from some abstract graph and some hand waving... )

If the Asianess of people plays a factor, why did their scores match up with non-Asians after living a long time in the country? This suggests that environment plays the role, to the exemptions of race considerations.

One example, and one known to be influenced by parental expectations; it isn't widely suggestive even. On the other hand, sickle-cell is almost exclusively an African condition, for obvious reasons, to the extent that the condition in a European usually indicates African ancestry.

So Environment is not "the" factor.

[Furunculus]

You can't do evil, in this case supressing the truth, to prevent evil. If your moral code isn't capable of preventing social Darwinism then not performing scientific research won't stop you.

I've heard all this before, and Loius already covered the answer. Just because the environment plays a part doesn't mean race doesn't.

^ two most important statements made in this debate so far, and probably the high-water mark of the debate. ^