By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Explain why racism is wrong...

dsgrue3 on 31 January 2013
Immortal said:
dsgrue3 said:

I didn't say your example was a fact.

My example is from multiple studies. They show that although males and females have the same average IQ, the distribution is quite different. Women cluster around the middle, men cluster around the extremes (high and low). You could also say there are more stupid males than stupid females.

I never bring personal assumptions into logical debates - that's stupid.


You say you don't. And you probably don't think you do either. But can you really be sure? I mean, suppose (again, humour me) an alternate reality where you did bring in biases into logical debates. Considering it would be entirely subconscious, would you really know? Do you really know right now?

Anyway, I more or less covered your response in my other post, didn't I? You have your studies, anyone with five minutes and Google could find an equal number of studies that disagree. (And this goes for any topic, really.) Sure, you'll point out the inaccuracies with opposing studies, show how they're biased, not well undertaken, have dubious methodologies, etc. But again, the other person will point out some minor inconsistencies with your studies. At this point, even if you're still convinced that you're more likely to be right, given that you have opposition and some objections to your studies, surely you can't say with absolute certainty that the number of smart males exceeds the number of smart females? And if there's even a degree of uncertainty, you really can't pass something off as a fact, can you?

It's impossible to remove bias, but I don't bring assumptions to the table. I bring statistics and sources as evidence to support a claim.

I challenge you to find a single study that counters my own regarding distrubution of IQ between men and women. Note: Distribution - not average IQ.

Good luck.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 31 January 2013
bananaking21 said:
richardhutnik said:
bananaking21 said:
NintendoPie said:
bananaking21 said:



ok let it put it this way, everybody is born equal its the actions of a person that decides what he/she that detrmine his/her "worth"

Erm, people aren't born equal either.

Let's put this way; everyone is different. It doesn't mean everyone who is different is bad.

what? how is everybody born not equal?! please do explain

People are born with certain advantages and disadvantages.  If everyone was born equal (the same) then there would be no differentiating between people and everyone would be identical.


your taking equal too literally. by saying equal i mean that everybody should be born with the same rights without and discrimination about what race, sex or religion. everybody should have the same rights and nobody should have the right to take them away from you because he doesnt like what you look like

If you want to go the rights route, than you need to show why rights should not be based on attributes one are born with, and what actually qualifies as rights.  In addition, you can argue that rights is the best criterion for making ethical decisions.    And you are bringing out should now also, without explaining why the should is.



richardhutnik on 31 January 2013
silicon said:
Racism is basically treating someone unfairly.

This concept is so rooted in our nature that chimps behave the same way.

http://healthyliving.msn.com/pregnancy-parenting/kids-health/chimpanzees-like-humans-seem-to-have-sense-of-fairness

Is something right or wrong, simply because it is rooted in one's nature?  Or, can one go deeper regarding this?  Impulses for violence are also rooting in human nature, but that doesn't make the outbursts of violence right.



richardhutnik on 31 January 2013
UltimateUnknown said:
Because it is mass stereotyping. There is no scientific study that concludes that every single person in a given race is dumber than the dumbest person in another race. If that was somehow proven to be the case, then you could make an objective claim stating "Race X is superior in IQ in Race Y". That is of course assuming you are taking into account one's innate IQ only and not the intelligence they gain throughout their lifetime, because intelligence can change depending on how much effort a person puts into learning. I of course did not mention subjective things such as "beauty" which no one will unanimously agree on.

You'd find that making such a claim of IQ is downright impossible given the fact that we have no absolute way of determining the IQ of a person at birth (at least at the time being) and hence if you made that statement without proof, you'd be bandwagoning people to a stereotype just because a certain set of people act in a certain way. Even if 99 people out of a 100 people acted in a certain way, it'd be wrong to bandwagon that one guy with the other 99 just because they have some other similarity.

So the ultimate point is, stop being racist and get to know people and judge them on their individual merit. Humans are all born unique because of the mechanics of genetics itself.

If it can be shown scientifically that certain people clustered around certain genetic attributes are superior in certain was, would it then be ok to acknowledge that group as a whole is superior to other groups?  Is the core objection to racism is that it is not scientifically true, but if it were, then it would be ok to act racist?



Kasz216 on 01 February 2013
Kantor said:
Well, there are a number of definitions of the word, but I personally like "the preferential treatment of one or more races above one or more others".

Racism is wrong because your race in itself does not affect your ability to do anything. It is true that members of certain races are, on average, better in certain aspects than members of other races, but that is not to say that every individual of that race is better than every individual of the "inferior" race.

You are judging somebody based on irrelevant criteria and generalising. You are not giving them a chance to show their true ability. You are not taking the time to learn about them as an individual. That is why it is wrong.

Let's take a specific example: choosing from a pool of applicants for a job. I would argue that it is immoral to give the job to anybody except the person who will fit in and succeed best at the company. That means it's immoral to give it to one of your friends, it's immoral to assume a black person is stupid (without looking further at him) and reject him, it is immoral to hire a black person to fill a quota.

Why is that immoral? I have no idea, that just seems like common sense to me, and the reductionism has to stop somewhere.

I would argue that you are likely to view people against stereotype as less likely to fit in unconsiously, when judging things subjectivly.

As is generally show to be the case in stuff like...

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/



Around the Network
ps3-sales! on 01 February 2013

Black people annoy me.



Currently own:

 

  • Ps4

 

Currently playing: Witcher 3, Walking Dead S1/2, GTA5, Dying Light, Tomb Raider Remaster, MGS Ground Zeros

UltimateUnknown on 01 February 2013
richardhutnik said:
UltimateUnknown said:
Because it is mass stereotyping. There is no scientific study that concludes that every single person in a given race is dumber than the dumbest person in another race. If that was somehow proven to be the case, then you could make an objective claim stating "Race X is superior in IQ in Race Y". That is of course assuming you are taking into account one's innate IQ only and not the intelligence they gain throughout their lifetime, because intelligence can change depending on how much effort a person puts into learning. I of course did not mention subjective things such as "beauty" which no one will unanimously agree on.

You'd find that making such a claim of IQ is downright impossible given the fact that we have no absolute way of determining the IQ of a person at birth (at least at the time being) and hence if you made that statement without proof, you'd be bandwagoning people to a stereotype just because a certain set of people act in a certain way. Even if 99 people out of a 100 people acted in a certain way, it'd be wrong to bandwagon that one guy with the other 99 just because they have some other similarity.

So the ultimate point is, stop being racist and get to know people and judge them on their individual merit. Humans are all born unique because of the mechanics of genetics itself.

If it can be shown scientifically that certain people clustered around certain genetic attributes are superior in certain was, would it then be ok to acknowledge that group as a whole is superior to other groups?  Is the core objection to racism is that it is not scientifically true, but if it were, then it would be ok to act racist?

Then that would be fact. If for some reason for example all black people had longer legs than all white people, then black people having longer legs than white people would be a fact just like a proton being made of two up quarks and a down quark, while a neutron is made of one up quark and two down quarks. Also in that case you would have no grounds of "insulting" someone for an attritube they were born with which they had no option in deciding. It is a fact that someone who is born handicapped can not walk while the majority of us can walk normally. But that doesn't give you, me or anyone else who can walk the right to insult the handicapped for not being able to walk, for he/she had no choice in the matter. Insulting someone for almost all reasons to me personally is wrong, but insulting someone for something they are born with is just plain dumb.

Racism although is quite the contrary where people make either false or untestable accusations on individuals based on stereotypes and people are victimised due to irrational fears or some kind of vague sense of superiority which are unfounded. This is why racism occurs mostly from what I have seen.

So my point here is, even if it is an empirical fact that you are born more gifted than others, which we do see everyday where certain people have more IQ or capability of learning or have more physical strength than others, it doesn't give you the right to insult or be tyrranical towards them, because neither you nor them chose to be born the way you were born.



 

Nem on 01 February 2013
badgenome said:
It's wrong because


Errr... that ad is questionable. It calls white people normal and the others abnormal? Quite funny though.



silicon on 01 February 2013
richardhutnik said:
silicon said:
Racism is basically treating someone unfairly.

This concept is so rooted in our nature that chimps behave the same way.

http://healthyliving.msn.com/pregnancy-parenting/kids-health/chimpanzees-like-humans-seem-to-have-sense-of-fairness

Is something right or wrong, simply because it is rooted in one's nature?  Or, can one go deeper regarding this?  Impulses for violence are also rooting in human nature, but that doesn't make the outbursts of violence right.


I agree that simply being human instinct isn't enough to judge whether something is wrong or right. However, what makes something right or wrong is the awareness of our actions. Whether something is wrong is strongly tied to the perspective one takes at a specific scenario.

We're all human, and we make mistakes. We can harm others whether we are aware of it or not. Racism is a human instinct, just like violence, and people  are susceptible to being racist. Some more than others. However, with racism, if we are aware that racism exists, and that knowingly acting in a racist manner can cause others harm, then I think it's fair to acknoledge that racism is wrong. 

Violence, like racism is an interesting human instinct. In certain situations it is wrong. Such as when a husband beats his wife. However, if someone is being attacked, then the instinct for violence can help that person survive. 

Racism like violence has practical uses, which has helped humanity get to where we are today. Unfortunately it's an instinct that's no longer very relevant.



richardhutnik on 01 February 2013
UltimateUnknown said:
richardhutnik said:
UltimateUnknown said:
Because it is mass stereotyping. There is no scientific study that concludes that every single person in a given race is dumber than the dumbest person in another race. If that was somehow proven to be the case, then you could make an objective claim stating "Race X is superior in IQ in Race Y". That is of course assuming you are taking into account one's innate IQ only and not the intelligence they gain throughout their lifetime, because intelligence can change depending on how much effort a person puts into learning. I of course did not mention subjective things such as "beauty" which no one will unanimously agree on.

You'd find that making such a claim of IQ is downright impossible given the fact that we have no absolute way of determining the IQ of a person at birth (at least at the time being) and hence if you made that statement without proof, you'd be bandwagoning people to a stereotype just because a certain set of people act in a certain way. Even if 99 people out of a 100 people acted in a certain way, it'd be wrong to bandwagon that one guy with the other 99 just because they have some other similarity.

So the ultimate point is, stop being racist and get to know people and judge them on their individual merit. Humans are all born unique because of the mechanics of genetics itself.

If it can be shown scientifically that certain people clustered around certain genetic attributes are superior in certain was, would it then be ok to acknowledge that group as a whole is superior to other groups?  Is the core objection to racism is that it is not scientifically true, but if it were, then it would be ok to act racist?

Then that would be fact. If for some reason for example all black people had longer legs than all white people, then black people having longer legs than white people would be a fact just like a proton being made of two up quarks and a down quark, while a neutron is made of one up quark and two down quarks. Also in that case you would have no grounds of "insulting" someone for an attritube they were born with which they had no option in deciding. It is a fact that someone who is born handicapped can not walk while the majority of us can walk normally. But that doesn't give you, me or anyone else who can walk the right to insult the handicapped for not being able to walk, for he/she had no choice in the matter. Insulting someone for almost all reasons to me personally is wrong, but insulting someone for something they are born with is just plain dumb.

Racism although is quite the contrary where people make either false or untestable accusations on individuals based on stereotypes and people are victimised due to irrational fears or some kind of vague sense of superiority which are unfounded. This is why racism occurs mostly from what I have seen.

So my point here is, even if it is an empirical fact that you are born more gifted than others, which we do see everyday where certain people have more IQ or capability of learning or have more physical strength than others, it doesn't give you the right to insult or be tyrranical towards them, because neither you nor them chose to be born the way you were born.

Is the issue here the racism or the insulting and acting tyrranical towards someone?  What justifies insulting or acting tyrranical towards anyone?  Even if all that was said is true, where someone is clearly superior, and a group of people are, would it be right they act in a manner of insulting and a pretty much a bully?