Scientific or not?

http://www.leavingcal.com/mess.html

On this message board about California politics.

prozak
do you leave your brains outside while posting?

(_x_)

Since I couldn't find anything related directly to both racism and science on that site, I'm going to commandeer this thread and piece together a reasonable topic.

On this (the California one, not sciforums) discussion board, I ran across a post by a white supremacist. Strangely enough, though I live in the Bible Belt of the United States, I have never encountered one of these before (thought I am supposedly related to many). I read his(/her) admission to being a racist and his(/yeah, I'll just say "his") disdain for accusations that assume he hates other races. The distinction, he said, involves his intellectual superiority over non-whites and his desire to live in a white nation, free of non-white influence, versus his lack of actual hatred for non-whites.

I was somewhat appalled, given my inexperience with white supremacists, but unfortunately that is all I was. I couldn't point out an immediate inconsistency. This troubles me.

As I've pointed out in other threads, I believe that the best way for humanity to be is with universal empathy for one another. Obviously, this precludes racism and even feelings of superiority. (Even more obviously, it's not an actual possibility, just something to approach.) It would be impossible for me to hold this view and be a racist and be logical. I like to think I'm logical.

But, there is the messy fact that races have some sort of differences. They may be as insignificant as a few alleles, or they may be at the subspecies level of bifurcation, or they may (though, again, I don't believe this at all) be vastly different intellectually and physically. There was a brief discussion here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=14400&perpage=20&pagenumber=1), but the results seemed inconclusive. Racism belongs more in General Philosophy, really, but rather than let this thread go to waste, I think I'll raise a series of questions based on all of the above:
What constitutes a race? Keep in mind, the definition need not be biological.
What constitutes racism? Is it ethical? Is it useful?
Can racism ever be avoided? How?
Since the biological reasons for racism are relatively obvious, what will be the eventual biological effect of racism in the present? Of non-discrimination? This opens up a huge amount of complexity (human evolution in modern times, which may or may not even occur). Ah well, had to put biology in there somewhere.

Great post!

"I believe that the best way for humanity to be is with universal empathy for one another. Obviously, this precludes racism and even feelings of superiority."

Why?

Empathy means recognizing differences and still caring about the other, but it doesn't mean you try to get your dog to fly and your bird to walk on a leash.

Originally posted by prozak
Great post! Thank you.

Why?

Empathy means recognizing differences and still caring about the other, but it doesn't mean you try to get your dog to fly and your bird to walk on a leash. I'm assuming you mean why it precludes racism/superiority. Well, it precludes racism if racism requires hate. Hate tends to prevent empathy. Racism is (usually) a subset of superiority, so all that really needs to be shown is why empathy precludes superiority.

Feelings of superiority are caused by a perception that one human can be valued more than another. This is okay to an extent, but when it falls along racial boundaries rather than family-nonfamily or friend-nonfriend divisions, it becomes a non-empathetic stereotype. One can only pity inferiors, and empathy has far different (more positive) effects than pity.

As to whether a dog flies or a bird walks on a leash, that just means that some can do things that others can't. It doesn't mean one is superior to the other.

spinoza ray prozak
unleash your weapons on this pathetic blasphemer!

:D

i mean dont people get the fact that the niggers are only good for singing and dancing? (dog to fly)
and lets not get started on them usurious kikes! (bird to walk on a leash)

Originally posted by spookz
i mean dont people get the fact that the niggers are only good for singing and dancing? (dog to fly) Nonsense. All people, regardless of race, are good for fertilizer.

Racism is unwarranted and stupid. People are variable and not all people of a race can be placed in the same categories of thought and behavior. You cannot accurately predict someone’s behavior and Intelligence by their race and there for racist beliefs are simple ignorance.

Guess what race I am?

mongoloid?

ps: a question like that in a thread like this has a very obvious answer

Nop not Asian try again!

you're human WellCookedFetus...now what do i win?

A ball of lint will be shipped to you in 4-6 weeks.

Nonsense. A fetus is not human!

nonsense.

no you nonsense

:bugeye: no...you nonsense.:m: :eek:

No I agree with him.

"We all got through about nine mouth parasite phase in our development."

So I’m more like a expelled tape worm or Fluke… cooked to perfection :D

If we are going to continue this argument lets do it here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16966

yes it is a vehicle for prozak's bigoted views

Here is a photo of Prozak with his friends...funny, they don't look very white to me...neither does Prozak really.

http://www.auraldecimation.com/nerd.jpg

...and what's wrong with your neck & face?

maybe some moderator activity is required here.

Am I the only person here that does not have a alternate name and personality on this forum? Am I the only one thats sane here??? :eek:

i don't have one..WCfetus

that's two then

Originally posted by Prozakisafag
Here is a photo of Prozak with his friends...funny, they don't look very white to me...neither does Prozak really.


Yes that certainly added a good point to the discussion :rolleyes:

idiot

Originally posted by Prozakisafag
Here is a photo of Prozak with his friends...funny, they don't look very white to me...neither does Prozak really.

http://www.auraldecimation.com/nerd.jpg

prozak! damn dog! is that really you? kinda jewish! are you then a self hating jew! why bother with creating a new acct? does prozak find these boards to constricting?

Well, now that you've forcibly asked.

Racism as I see it isn't about hate. Racism is one part of a political outlook that can be called nationalism. The racial part is not a question of superiority, but separation for the purposes of cultural survival with mutual respect.

Originally posted by prozak
Well, now that you've forcibly asked.

Racism as I see it isn't about hate. Racism is one part of a political outlook that can be called nationalism. The racial part is not a question of superiority, but separation for the purposes of cultural survival with mutual respect. In the interest of avoiding a cliché, I'll forgo expounding on the obvious comparison with Hitler and focus more on the details of and motives for this racism.
What is a race?
What prevents one from maintaining cultural integrity when in the company of other cultures?
Why must one maintain cultural integrity?
Is there any justification for feeling that you are more entitled to live in your nation than those of other races are?
Is mutual respect possible when your fundamental beliefs indicate that some freedoms (living in nation X) must be revoked from the other party?

Overall, the only benefit to nationalism that I can see is military strength. This is a medieval concept, though, and should have died out with the enlightenment, or at least with the development of modern warfare (which is not dependent on racial unity).

Nationalism preserves ethnicity, which means that one is able to be distinct instead of resembling everyone else. This allows for "we do it differently here" and thus is inherently a stronger model than the linear, let's-all-act-the-same effect achieved by intermixing.

To the enlighten mind racism is a falsie, only the ignorant and egotistical cling to it!

Not necessarily. The most enlightened minds are usually racist :)

Ultra-controversial link:

http://www.blizzard.com/war3/races/

No only the most foolish minds that think there enlightened. There is a big difference between nationalism and racism perhaps you should change the title of you belief before people get confused.

Believing in a game is ok though

I quote "aqua team hunger force" often
“Using a key to gouge expletives on another’s vehicle is a sign of trust… and friendship.”
Prophet Egnog: Aqua team Hunger force: Mooninites: 06:29-36

I did not equate nationalism and racism in the sense of replacement of one another, but nationalism includes "racism" meaning being aware of racial differences and the need for separation.

you mean ethnic and cultural differences?

http://bbs.anus.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000797

aaaaaah ya what ever.

Originally posted by prozak
Not necessarily. The most enlightened minds are usually racist :) Intelligent minds that are racist are usually intelligent in spite of their racism, not because of it, and intelligence is not the cause of their racism. Such minds, however, are few and far between. Show me an intelligent racist, and I'll show you an unforgiving societal meme.

Also, there are a large number of unanswered questions above, primarily directed towards your beliefs (in my last post).

With just a little reading, you can answer all your own questions about the basis for racism, its degree of usefuleness in the past, and its degree of usefulness now: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Hamilton%27s+Rule&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=

adam

and no doubt, for the sake of consistency, you will refrain from ever asking questions here on this board again. always keep in mind that all it takes is "just a little reading"

;)

Originally posted by LaoTzu
Intelligent minds that are racist are usually intelligent in spite of their racism, not because of it, and intelligence is not the cause of their racism. Such minds, however, are few and far between. Show me an intelligent racist, and I'll show you an unforgiving societal meme.

Also, there are a large number of unanswered questions above, primarily directed towards your beliefs (in my last post).

What about the other possibility: that intelligent minds produce many intelligent outputs, of which a "Racist" (nationalist) belief might be one?

Arthur Schopenhauer is one intelligent racist. Thomas Jefferson is another. Any from the current time are keeping quiet about it, because racism is a big taboo.

You might find the answers you seek here:
http://www.anus.com/anus/ideology/

But since you've already stated yourself as a bigoted foe of "racism," I'm not going into depth again here.

I said only the ignorant and egotistical cling to racism... when did I say intelligence mattered? Nationalism is not racism: it is pride in ones society and cultural beliefs not race.

Wrong.

Nationalism exists from a time where country was defined by race, and as a core belief, is still attached to that doctrine.

Further, I've seen zero evidence here from the anti-racist crowd.

Racial differences are real. The groups should be separated. The advantage is in us NOT becoming a monoculture.

More info here:
http://bbs.anus.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=000135

Racial difference is not real, individuals very and not all, not even the majority will fit a common racial stereotypes! Did you ever take an ethic or statistics class in college?

NO you’re wrong, whites are not the only ones that can have national pride to be citizens of the USofA! Take me for example: Even though I think we got problems I love this country and would rather be here then anywhere else in the world (except for vacations that when it time to go back to the mother country :D )

Racial differences are real in appearance only, and I disagree whole-heartedly that they should be kept separate. A monoculture like the one you describe will never exist. Geography alone will prevent that from happening.

Originally posted by prozak
What about the other possibility: that intelligent minds produce many intelligent outputs, of which a "Racist" (nationalist) belief might be one?

Arthur Schopenhauer is one intelligent racist. Thomas Jefferson is another. Any from the current time are keeping quiet about it, because racism is a big taboo.

You might find the answers you seek here:
http://www.anus.com/anus/ideology/

But since you've already stated yourself as a bigoted foe of "racism," I'm not going into depth again here. Calling a fellow poster a bigot is not advisable if truth is your standard. It will not help debate, which is our route to truth in this medium.

Besides that, my statement was that I don't believe intelligence causes racism any more than any person believes an opposing view is caused by their opponent's intelligence. If I believed it were more intelligent to be racist I would be a racist.

Also, the word "bigot (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot)" is defined as, "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Given the actual inclusion of the word "race" and your spring-loaded recrimination, that seems to fall more in line with racism than with anti-racism.


That aside, let's get back to the issue, shall we?

In order to show that racism is a result of intelligence, one needs to do more than name two people who happened to be both racist and intelligent. They both lived at (about) the same time, which is two hundred years past. At that time, science was not very reliable and misconceptions about psychology and other complex fields were far more common than sound ideas about these issues were. There was a prevailing attitude of racism; these men had their thinking done for them in that area. Their areas of expertise were not biology or ethnic relations.
Thomas Jefferson's ideas of equality contradict his racism. He was a paradox; racism was not a consistent part of his view. He believed that black people were not equal to white people, which is not equality as I understand the definition.
Leonardo da Vinci was a genius. He also believed that dinosaur fossils were remnants of the angels of a previous age. Aristotle was a genius. He also believed that the earth was the center of the universe, that things came to rest because of the innate perfection of being still, and that a pantheon of deities controlled natural phenomena. In short, one's intelligence doesn't necessitate the truth of one's beliefs.
In short, one must show deductively why racism is a desirable outlook.

Further, I've seen zero evidence here from the anti-racist crowd. What proposition are we defending? I asked a large number of questions (none of which have been answered); I didn't make any propositions other than my denial of your assertion that racism is due to intelligence (which you didn't provide reasoning for). For your convenience, and perhaps to get your attention, I will repost the questions here:

Originally posted by LaoTzu
What constitutes a race? Keep in mind, the definition need not be biological.

What constitutes racism? Is it ethical? Is it useful?

Can racism ever be avoided? How?

Since the biological reasons for racism are relatively obvious, what will be the eventual biological effect of racism in the present? Of non-discrimination? This opens up a huge amount of complexity (human evolution in modern times, which may or may not even occur). Ah well, had to put biology in there somewhere.


. . .


What prevents one from maintaining cultural integrity when in the company of other cultures?

Why must one maintain cultural integrity?

Is there any justification for feeling that you are more entitled to live in your nation than those of other races are?

Is mutual respect possible when your fundamental beliefs indicate that some freedoms (living in nation X) must be revoked from the other party? I would prefer that at least one of these questions be answered before you make any more claims of my bigotry or lack of evidence. The answers will be crucial to the determination of the truth of this issue.

Originally posted by prozak
Nationalism exists from a time where country was defined by race, and as a core belief, is still attached to that doctrine. Yeah, and if you wanted to name your cause based on a similar line of reasoning, you could use some sort of foreign language, perhaps one that is still attached to the concept. Like German. "Nazional," . . . hmmm . . . too long . . . it should be shortened, so it's catchy . . . .
Further, I've seen zero evidence here from the anti-racist crowd. I hate to play this card, but there's no way around it. History has seen the results of a racist, nationalist empire: the deaths of 12 million people in addition to the 13.5 million killed in war. The Nazi party stood for pride in a single race, to the exclusion of others, and for national unilateralism. It was efficient. It was not good, by any major standard of which I am aware. I urge you to reconsider what you think will be the results of the implementation of your views.

Racial differences are real. In what way, and why does that matter?

The groups should be separated. Why on earth? Just because my mother is a woman doesn't mean I should forcibly extricate her from my country.

The advantage is in us NOT becoming a monoculture. Why? What advantage do we have as a polyculture? And what makes you think we'll become a monoculture if we don't export all the non-Aryans? The exportation of divergent individuals, not their inclusion, would seem to initiate a monoculture.



Oh yeah: and why don't you answer some of my questions?

prozak

i almost forgot your theme song (http://spookyz.virtualave.net/tmp/nap.rm)

Can't get that to work on my pitiful little mac.

" Losing you would make me flip my lid….. Right?
You know you laughed I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed, and laughed and laughed
And then you left and now you know I’m utterly mad
They are coming to take me away HaHa
They are coming to take me away HoHo, HeHe, HaHa
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket waivers
Who site and smile and twiddle their thumbs . . . they are coming to take me away HAHA. "

Hee hee hee . . . I see now. Thanks.