Counter-bigotry

[LeftEyeNine]

Pardon me for, probably, malcoining the term, but would it be existent ?

While reading from PJ's input here in "gay parenting" thread, a question came along momentarily:

Assume that a scientific research of a relevant institution thereto proved gay parenting was indeed inferior/harmful compared to a family of heterosexual parents, or that, to spice up, Turks were genetically heavily inclined to going mafioso, how would it be received by you? Would you take the fact outright or would your humane feelings intervene and look for doubt ?

[Fisherking]

I think I would be skeptical of the studies to start with. Things are very seldom so cut and dry as presented.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

For thought questions to work, they have to be conceivable.

[Strike For The South]

Since the dawn of time every stereotype and bigot has been proven wrong.

Those who continue to hold to the notion that a human being is anything other than what he makes of himself is a black mark on the species

[LeftEyeNine]

-which leads to say that science never leads to stereotyping, SFTS ? If it is proven, it can't discriminate ?

[Strike For The South]

-which leads to say that science never leads to stereotyping, SFTS ? If it is proven, it can't discriminate ?

Psuedo science driven by those who wish to elevate themselves over there fellow man has at times purported to have found the "superior" human but its all a farce

The more we know the more we realize how similar we are

I would not say science can't discriminate, more like people who wish to descriminate can't use science

I don't know if I could bring myself to bear such a study if proven true. I would probably off myself. It would lead to every single peckerwood claiming this or that

Human progress would grind to a screeching halt, riots, etc

[Vuk]

Pardon me for, probably, malcoining the term, but would it be existent ?

While reading from PJ's input here in "gay parenting" thread, a question came along momentarily:

Assume that a scientific research of a relevant institution thereto proved gay parenting was indeed inferior/harmful compared to a family of heterosexual parents, or that, to spice up, Turks were genetically heavily inclined to going mafioso, how would it be received by you? Would you take the fact outright or would your humane feelings intervene and look for doubt ?

My 2 cents. I have certain religious beliefs about humanity (Man was created in the image of God, etc) that are incompatible with a believe that a human can be genetically 'bad' (all humans were created in God's image after all). Behavioral differences in 'races' (something I am not going to get into defining) therefore I attribute to culture. Does that mean that there are not differences? No. Just as there are major size differences between different people, I would be willing to believe that there could genetically be minor behavioral differences (do to hormone differences, etc), but nothing major. Behavioral differences (agression vs. pacifism, etc) always have a positive and negative side, so I do not think that these could be classified as 'bad'.
Sorry for the long lead up, but my point is that if there was research showing that "Turks were genetically more inclined to be mafioso", I would want to check their research. What makes them more likely to join the mafia? Are they more ambitious? Re-actionary? Aggressive? etc. All those things have positive sides as well.

When it comes to choices/cultures/etc., I believe that some are definitely better than others, and that some can be over-whelmingly bad. People think that ethnicism or dislike of people of a given persuasion is bad and on parr with racism, but it is not. Racism is wrong because it is inaccurate. If you think all blacks are murderers and you kill all blacks, the wrong is that you are killing innocent people due to an incorrect stereotype. If all blacks were indeed evil murderers, there would be no wrong in killing them or hating them.
Lifestyles are not like races though. It entails a certain way of thinking (cannabalism, socialism, homosexuality, conservatism, etc), and you have every right to hate them. Nazism for instance, or racism are examples of ways of thinking and lifestyles that most people find deplorable. Is it wrong to hate Nazis? Of course not.
People always preach that you should stop the hate, but the truth is that hate can be a healthy thing. You SHOULD hate things that are wrong, and harmful to innocent people. Therefore if a study came out that said that people of a certain lifestyle were better/worse parents, I would be a lot more willing to accept that on face value, as I think that some beliefs are truly better than others.

[LeftEyeNine]

Take "science" as how it is supposed to be: Observative, rational and unbiased.

[PanzerJaeger]

If the scientific consensus on a subject is clear, political correctness should not suppress it.

[HoreTore]

If collective statistics and traits are to have an effect on an individual level, there had better be a damned good reason for it.

As an example, the Saami as a group has a wastly higher level of lactose intolerance than ethnic Norwegians. That, however, does nt stop the one Saami guy in my study group of 55 to chuck down around a litre of milk per day. And me, an ethnic norwegian, is moderately lactose intolerant, meaning I can't drink a glass of milk without spending half an hour in the toilett.

If the answer to LEN's question is "yes, collective treatment should be in effect", then the Saami guy who drinks a litre milk a day without problems would be barred from drinking milk due to the very high intolerance levels in the general Saami population, while I, who can't drink a glass of milk, would be encouraged to drink milk due to the very low levels of lactose intolerance in the genereal ethnic norwegian population.

I's pure nonsense, no matter how you see it. Swap "milk" in e text above for whatever you need.

[Brenus]

“Man was created in the image of God”:
Which one? God?
Err, and man: Sapiens or Neanderthal?

Ok, hors sujet, no problem…

[Rhyfelwyr]

If the answer to LEN's question is "yes, collective treatment should be in effect", then the Saami guy who drinks a litre milk a day without problems would be barred from drinking milk due to the very high intolerance levels in the general Saami population, while I, who can't drink a glass of milk, would be encouraged to drink milk due to the very low levels of lactose intolerance in the genereal ethnic norwegian population.

I's pure nonsense, no matter how you see it. Swap "milk" in e text above for whatever you need.

Fine, I'll swap "milk" with "vulnerability to a certian disease". If the Saami were more likely to get this disease, would you have a problem with all Saami being given jabs to protect them from it, even if some of them as individuals might not be prone to it?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Fine, I'll swap "milk" with "vulnerability to a certian disease". If the Saami were more likely to get this disease, would you have a problem with all Saami being given jabs to protect them from it, even if some of them as individuals might not be prone to it?

Now swap in "not allowed to adopt kids" for "jabs" and "kids might get made fun of in school instead of being in an orphanage" for "more likely to get disease".

[LeftEyeNine]

"Milk" example is dilating what my concern supposed to take an insight to. History rather witnessed nationalistic and cultural clashes, even as violent as a war at times, and that's the point.

So please try to keep on a sensitive example if looking to shed another light onto this.

[HoreTore]

Fine, I'll swap "milk" with "vulnerability to a certian disease". If the Saami were more likely to get this disease, would you have a problem with all Saami being given jabs to protect them from it, even if some of them as individuals might not be prone to it?

If the individual Saami given the shot agreed to it, yes, I would support it.

A forced immunization of a population group due to traits specific to that group? Hell no!

[LeftEyeNine]

Easier for you: Why don't you follow my examples in the OP ?

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, there are much easier ones:

Children generally do better with rich parents
Children generally do better with educated parents
Children generally do better in smaller families

So shouldn't we be having a go at poor, ignorant, large families...?

[Ironside]

Now swap in "not allowed to adopt kids" for "jabs" and "kids might get made fun of in school instead of being in an orphanage" for "more likely to get disease".

Easy. Adoption always occurs on an induvidual level, so even with a "gay parents=proven bad"-factor, gay parents can still be the best candidate for rising the child (not counting a bunch of other complications in this case).

Vaccines from diseases are usually fairly harmless, so a massive overuse isn't as bad as the disease itself. Thus you can afford to not be picky, since it's normally better (it trains your immune system), easier, cheaper and quicker.

To answer op, one of the largest differences that exist among humans is physical strength between the genders. Does this mean that it doesn't exist females stronger than you? Unless you're a really strong guy, yes there's girls that beats you in a physical contest. So always judge on an indivual basis.

If the difference is large enough to be clearly visible on a national level, it needs to be taken into consideration and might force a slightly different approach (more prone to become mafia? More focus on reducing organized crime), but the cultural influence is probably going to be much stronger than any genetical difference.
Take Afghanistan for example, it's obvious that the "bully wins" attitude and massive short sightedness is crippling to the country, but it's also quite clear that it has been an adaption for unstable times, that either created or enforced this attitude, not any genetical base. In such case, it should be good to influence the region towards a better behavior.

But then there's plenty of cases where you can't say that this method is much better than the other one. Which murkens things a bit and basically tells you to thread carefully.

[HoreTore]

Easier for you: Why don't you follow my examples in the OP ?

I do believe I have already answered the OP.

[LeftEyeNine]

On that "milk" basis; I'm not satisfied. But if you believe it to be so, so be it.

[HoreTore]

On that "milk" basis; I'm not satisfied. But if you believe it to be so, so be it.

Read the last sentence again.

[LeftEyeNine]

It just doesn't work that way. If you feel like not doing it, then okay, fine by me.

[HoreTore]

It just doesn't work that way. If you feel like not doing it, then okay, fine by me.

It's not my fault you are unable to understand abstractions and metaphors.

If a population group is "heavily inclined to go mafioso"(whatever the hell that means), then it will still be wrong to give that population group a collective treatment, because of the factors I outlined in my first post.

[LeftEyeNine]

Your overbluntness muds your intellectuality, HoreTore-sama.

Thanks for the brief and meaningful answer I extracted out of you after giving it some effort, despite you saying that it was not your fault in the first sentence.

[HoreTore]

The third paragraph of my first post says exactly the same as the second paragraph of my last post.

[LeftEyeNine]

-which is based on milk, something which people never fought over.

If a population group is "heavily inclined to go mafioso"(whatever the hell that means), then it will still be wrong to give that population group a collective treatment, because of the factors I outlined in my first post.

This exactly meets the requirement of this thread's inquiry.