Compliance to "diversity" and "affirmative action" cost 4% of GDP each year.

[RCG Trader]

One more thing, I do not think so black and white as believe the GOP = real white people. Most racists have that kind of view. The GOP in the strictest sense has destroyed the democrats when it comes to racial reconciliation.

I think personally that the GOP must jettison the former dixiecrats who took refuge in the party when the dems drove them out.

These dixiecrats today are known as conservatives, and are led by....well, you know all that.

 

[phenomena]

Races don't exist? That's odd, they tell me that having as much racial diversity as possible is a good thing. If there are in fact no races, how is this the case? If no races exist, then how come government and fortune 500 hiring policies favor nonwhites? How are there black organizations if race doesn't exist? For some reason I think I'd have trouble getting a scholarship for black people. Imagine that, having the government deny me opportunities and resources because of my race... do they have a word for that? How are these things possible if race is imaginary?

If race doesn't exist, why are there diseases which almost uniquely affect certain races? Why don't white people get sickle cell anemia? Why do blacks experience the onset of puberty earlier? How is it that geneticists can identify with nearly 100 pct accuracy which race someone is by examining their DNA, without ever seeing the person? Why is it that we can identify which race a person belongs to via recognition of specific racial features, in the vast majority of cases? Why is it that if I "dress black" and "talk black", and adapt "black behavior" no one believes that I am actually black?

I guess these diseases are racist too? I guess the biological processes are racist? The DNA is racist? Do these racial features just accompany cultures? If I start mimicking black culture then I will turn black? This is absurd. Of course race exists, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think many racial terms are distasteful and classless, such as n*(ger. If I used that term, particularly in the presence of a group of blacks, I couldn't be surprised if I got a hostile reaction. By the same token, when blacks have referred to me as "crackah", "pinky", etc. I am also offended, and feel obligated to react the same way most blacks do when they are called the n-word. Yet, if they use terms, like "redneck", "cracker", "honkey", "pinky", that's not "racist", yet if I use the n-word, it can ruin my reputation and career. Look at Mel Gibson... Other prestigious careers have been ended by merely uttering certain syllables- "nappy headed", "cotton pickin" etc. Yet, we can have "wise latinas" and "old white men" or "strong black women" all day long, and that's fine. More racial hypocrisy... We are told that racial diversity is our great strength, yet race doesn't actually exist...

Also, I "pre judge" no one. I'll defer to renowned scientist Steven Pinker on this issue:

"In theory, we have the intellectual and moral tools to defuse the dangers. "Is" does not imply "ought." Group differences, when they exist, pertain to averages, not to individual men and women. There are geniuses and dullards, saints and sinners, in every race, ethnicity, and gender. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that people are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points."

Just because individuals aren't bound by group differences, doesn't mean that group differences don't exist. The criticism that I "deal in generalities" falls by the wayside when we realize that we are having a discussion about groups, not individuals. It would only be inappropriate in the context of an individual.

Quote from RCG Trader:

It seems to me that any dignified black should stand up against Affirmative Action and any form of government discrimination against whites. They didn't want it done to them, so they shouldn't want it inflicted upon others, right? Equality is what they wanted, right? Not racially based preference schemes, right?

Correct, and it is an argument that I get into often as a student on history and the psychological effects of the conquerors and the conquered, all the time.

A classic symptom of the colonized mind is to take the ills of the oppressor and adopt this behavior, hence the rampant use of the word n*gger in the black community. When I explain it to people I have to use "battered wife syndrome" as it is the best approximation to this behavior.

So you just want to end quotas, no one intelligent is against this.

My issue is your belief that races exist. Cultures exist, but not races. Science does not recognize this. Homo-Sapiens Sapiens is what exists.

Based on your belief that races exist, it sounds that you imply that some races are better than other races at doing certain things. You fail to factor in an infinite number of variables. You deal in generalities, hence, you pre-judge.

Next question.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

And based on your posts I could definitely build the case that you are over sensitive about whites, especially white men

Since you happen to be one and everything.

I didn't say or mean to imply that you're sensitive BECAUSE you're black. Only that you are overly sensitive about blacks...and you happen to be black. We have whites here who are more overly sensitive about blacks than you are.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

I didn't say or mean to imply that you're sensitive BECAUSE you're black. Only that you are overly sensitive about blacks...and you happen to be black. We have whites here who are more overly sensitive about blacks than you are.

Please build your case as to how I am overly sensitive about blacks. I seriously doubt you can.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from phenomena:

Races don't exist? That's odd, they tell me that having as much racial diversity as possible is a good thing. If there are in fact no races, how is this the case? If no races exist, then how come government and fortune 500 hiring policies favor nonwhites? How are there black organizations if race doesn't exist? For some reason I think I'd have trouble getting a scholarship for black people. Imagine that, having the government deny me opportunities and resources because of my race... do they have a word for that? How are these things possible if race is imaginary?

If race doesn't exist, why are there diseases which almost uniquely affect certain races? Why don't white people get sickle cell anemia? Why do blacks experience the onset of puberty earlier? How is it that geneticists can identify with nearly 100 pct accuracy which race someone is by examining their DNA, without ever seeing the person? Why is it that we can identify which race a person belongs to via recognition of specific racial features, in the vast majority of cases? Why is it that if I "dress black" and "talk black", and adapt "black behavior" no one believes that I am actually black?

I guess these diseases are racist too? I guess the biological processes are racist? The DNA is racist? Do these racial features just accompany cultures? If I start mimicking black culture then I will turn black? This is absurd. Of course race exists, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think many racial terms are distasteful and classless, such as n*(ger. If I used that term, particularly in the presence of a group of blacks, I couldn't be surprised if I got a hostile reaction. By the same token, when blacks have referred to me as "crackah", "pinky", etc. I am also offended, and feel obligated to react the same way most blacks do when they are called the n-word. Yet, if they use terms, like "redneck", "cracker", "honkey", "pinky", that's not "racist", yet if I use the n-word, it can ruin my reputation and career. Look at Mel Gibson... Other prestigious careers have been ended by merely uttering certain syllables- "nappy headed", "cotton pickin" etc. Yet, we can have "wise latinas" and "old white men" or "strong black women" all day long, and that's fine. More racial hypocrisy... We are told that racial diversity is our great strength, yet race doesn't actually exist...

Also, I "pre judge" no one. I'll defer to renowned scientist Steven Pinker on this issue:

"In theory, we have the intellectual and moral tools to defuse the dangers. "Is" does not imply "ought." Group differences, when they exist, pertain to averages, not to individual men and women. There are geniuses and dullards, saints and sinners, in every race, ethnicity, and gender. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that people are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points."

Just because individuals aren't bound by group differences, doesn't mean that group differences don't exist. The criticism that I "deal in generalities" falls by the wayside when we realize that we are having a discussion about groups, not individuals. It would only be inappropriate in the context of an individual.

Strong points, and because of that I will concede.

Senario: the Tea Party has won, and you are now President of the United States. What would be your first act with regards to this illegal and immoral discrimination against whites? What exactly would you do?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

My issue is your belief that races exist. Cultures exist, but not races. Science does not recognize this. Homo-Sapiens is what exists.

Our PC obsessed scientists? Maybe "race" is the wrong term but I wouldn't think culture would account for distinct genetic differences. Sub species maybe?

Based on your belief that races exist, it sounds that you imply that some races are better than other races at doing certain things.

Although not directed to me, I tend to believe that there are sufficient differences leading some to being better at some things than others.

You fail to factor in an infinite number of variables. You deal in generalities, hence, you pre-judge

I don't see how dealing in obvious generalities necesarily results in pre judging, although I could see where it might. For example I knew you were black but made my comment about you being a generally smart guy based on your posts, not your skin color.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"Sub species maybe?"

So blacks are a "sub" species?

Keep digging that whole you are in...

"I don't see how dealing in obvious generalities necesarily results in pre judging."

Obvious generalities? Other than the color of a black's skin, what are the "obvious" generalities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_distribution

I tend to believe that there are sufficient differences leading some to being better at some things than others.

Some are better than others, but race is not a determinate factor necessarily. Just ask Larry Bird.

""I'm making split second, multimillion dollar, life and death decisions."

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...highlight=split

Quote from Lucrum:

Our PC obsessed scientists? Maybe "race" is the wrong term but I wouldn't think culture would account for distinct genetic differences. Sub species maybe?

Although not directed to me, I tend to believe that there are sufficient differences leading some to being better at some things than others. I don't see how dealing in obvious generalities necesarily results in pre judging, although I could see where it might. For example I knew you were black but made my comment about you being a generally smart guy based on your posts, not your skin color.

 

[trendlover]

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm


"How did sickle cell originate and what does that reveal about the racial world view?

Sickle cell is a nice way to think about the difference between a racial world view and a world view in which you look at adaptation, change, adjustment to different environments. To the racial world view, sickle cell was seen as a disease of African-ness, a condition of African-ness, perhaps even a pathology of African-ness.

And so to find sickle cell was to find evidence of African-ness by definition. It was typological. If a person from Italy had sickle cell, it must be because they had some African blood - they must be polluted with African blood. And that was the end of the story. If you had sickle cell, you're African; if you're African, you might have sickle cell. And it's a rather pre-Darwinian and perhaps comforting story. But, it's also a very wrong story.

The right story - and I think the much more interesting story - emerged in the 1950s. And that was with a couple of discoveries. The first one was a discovery that sickle cell, which is a change in red blood cells that gives it a sickle shape, actually confers an advantage in fighting malaria. An individual who has one sickle cell allele, but not both - what we call sickle cell 'trait' - has a selective advantage in situations in which you have endemic malaria. Individuals who had sickle cell trait seemed to resist malaria better than other individuals. And malaria is, and has been, one of the greatest killers of humanity of all time. If ever there is a selective pressure, malaria is it. And so those individuals might actually survive and prosper, and then the number of subsequent individuals with sickle cell trait would increase in a population because that allele would be selected for.

Well, that's one thing. The other thing was to actually take a close look at where malaria actually arose and became endemic and severe. Then also to look at who has sickle cell. Frank Livingston did this, and lo and behold the two maps matched extremely well. Places in which malaria was endemic, and had been endemic for a long time, were exactly the places in which sickle cell was highest. Conversely, places where endemic malaria was rather low were places in which sickle cell was virtually non-existent.

He had more than a smoking gun there. He had a nice evolutionary story and a rather tight one about how, perhaps, 5,000 years ago, for instance, in West Africa, endemic malaria became a serious problem when people started cutting down forests in the origins of agriculture. And individuals who had sickle cell were selected for, and it expanded.

Sickle cell isn't an African disease. It is true that some Africans have sickle cell, particularly individuals who have ancestry around West Africa. That's one of the highest places of sickle cell. But, it's also true that East Africans hardly have any sickle cell. South Africans don't have any sickle cell. But, it's also a Middle Eastern disease, and it's also a Mediterranean disease. Individuals in Turkey and Greece and Italy, Sicily, have sickle cell; more than individuals do in South Africa, or in East Africa. So, sickle cell is not an African disease; it's a condition that developed in response to malaria."

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from trendlover:

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-07.htm


"How did sickle cell originate and what does that reveal about the racial world view?

Sickle cell is a nice way to think about the difference between a racial world view and a world view in which you look at adaptation, change, adjustment to different environments. To the racial world view, sickle cell was seen as a disease of African-ness, a condition of African-ness, perhaps even a pathology of African-ness.

And so to find sickle cell was to find evidence of African-ness by definition. It was typological. If a person from Italy had sickle cell, it must be because they had some African blood - they must be polluted with African blood. And that was the end of the story. If you had sickle cell, you're African; if you're African, you might have sickle cell. And it's a rather pre-Darwinian and perhaps comforting story. But, it's also a very wrong story.

The right story - and I think the much more interesting story - emerged in the 1950s. And that was with a couple of discoveries. The first one was a discovery that sickle cell, which is a change in red blood cells that gives it a sickle shape, actually confers an advantage in fighting malaria. An individual who has one sickle cell allele, but not both - what we call sickle cell 'trait' - has a selective advantage in situations in which you have endemic malaria. Individuals who had sickle cell trait seemed to resist malaria better than other individuals. And malaria is, and has been, one of the greatest killers of humanity of all time. If ever there is a selective pressure, malaria is it. And so those individuals might actually survive and prosper, and then the number of subsequent individuals with sickle cell trait would increase in a population because that allele would be selected for.

Well, that's one thing. The other thing was to actually take a close look at where malaria actually arose and became endemic and severe. Then also to look at who has sickle cell. Frank Livingston did this, and lo and behold the two maps matched extremely well. Places in which malaria was endemic, and had been endemic for a long time, were exactly the places in which sickle cell was highest. Conversely, places where endemic malaria was rather low were places in which sickle cell was virtually non-existent.

He had more than a smoking gun there. He had a nice evolutionary story and a rather tight one about how, perhaps, 5,000 years ago, for instance, in West Africa, endemic malaria became a serious problem when people started cutting down forests in the origins of agriculture. And individuals who had sickle cell were selected for, and it expanded.

Sickle cell isn't an African disease. It is true that some Africans have sickle cell, particularly individuals who have ancestry around West Africa. That's one of the highest places of sickle cell. But, it's also true that East Africans hardly have any sickle cell. South Africans don't have any sickle cell. But, it's also a Middle Eastern disease, and it's also a Mediterranean disease. Individuals in Turkey and Greece and Italy, Sicily, have sickle cell; more than individuals do in South Africa, or in East Africa. So, sickle cell is not an African disease; it's a condition that developed in response to malaria."

Well, you have more fortitude than I, as I knew this but did not have the energy to do battle with a phenotype that I have done battle with so many times before. Thanks for putting up the facts, but it will change few minds.

Phenomena believes there are fundamental differences between whites and non-whites. He will not answer the question of "what next".

I conceded on purpose just to see what his "solution" would be.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

Our PC obsessed scientists? Maybe "race" is the wrong term but I wouldn't think culture would account for distinct genetic differences. Sub species maybe?

Although not directed to me, I tend to believe that there are sufficient differences leading some to being better at some things than others. I don't see how dealing in obvious generalities necesarily results in pre judging, although I could see where it might. For example I knew you were black but made my comment about you being a generally smart guy based on your posts, not your skin color.

Lucrum, what makes me a generally smart guy is that I do not restrict myself to any ideology, dogma, race, creed, or sexual origin to gather facts.

Perhaps it would do you well to consider jumping out of the box.