john9blue wrote:^ well said
i often wonder what percentage of people would acknowledge a biological and scientific proof that there are inherent differences in abilities between different races.
we've done the same thing with gender, and some people still think males and females can do everything that the other gender can do equally well. so i don't have much hope.
just because judging people primarily as individuals is a good idea doesn't mean that we can't study differences between groups.
Unfortunately not many.
It should be pretty obvious to people that such differences
can exist, but many choose not to take it seriously or simply dismiss it as prejudice. That's just a brain fart on their part.
Nothing is prejudice if it's true. So if you can showcase the existence of such a variety you're not being prejudice. Prejudice is to claim things without having logical reasoning to back it up.
When for example I say white people are better at enduring low levels of sun exposure I'm not being prejudice, because I back it up with logic and a scienctificly oriented mindset. I would claim fair skin has less protection against sun light and is therefore better at absorbing the sun light it's exposed to. Being exposed to the rays from the sun is critical to us because it provides us with vitamin D, without which we are at risk to a variety of diseases.
In this case I took the example of fair skin's positive attributes in areas with low levels of sun exposure on earth, but I could've choosen to highlight the advantage of having dark skin in areas with high exposure to the sun. Either way it would be equally none prejudice. Whatever criticism directed towards the argument should be dealing with the factual statements, because that's the way you discuss scientific matters.
If a scientist disagrees with the studies conducted by another scientist he doesn't get all personal and say something on the lines of "Your face is ugly!" or "Racist pig!", that just reflects badly on himself and makes him look like the idiot (which he would be if he said that)
The same thought process should be used when for example discussing differences in IQ between races. The argument should be about how much of our intelligence is due to our environment and how much is genes, because that's the only way to even remotely explain the measured difference in IQ between races. The wrong way to conduct the argument would be to blame one part for bringing this statitsic up or denying it's existence or just jump staright to the a la natty claim "You're racist!". I'm glad he's gone btw. It's no secret we didn't get along, my problem with him is that he had no integrity. He never hesitated to use cheap tactics to smear others, morphed his opinions just to win an argument and then refused to acknowledge that it changed at all.
Symmetry is very good at dealing with people who make nonsense, nonfactual, prejudice statements of why one race is better than another. People with a racist agenda.
He's not equipped at dealing with people who doesn't themselves have an agenda but simply wish to keep an open mind about the subject and discuss what evidence there is for certain claims. That's when he's witch hunting.
*Side note*
According to the stupid definition of the word "racist", any and all claims of difference between races is considered racist. So you can't even state obvious truths like black people are better at enduring high exposure to the sun, without being racist. That's why I consider to word hollow and pointless.
