Well, I, in the first place, would not do much with this information per se, although it is obvious that it would become a basis for racism and hatred. I wouldn't concentrate on the average intelligence of a "race", when employing someone from the race in concern, but would rather want to base my decision on the abilities of the individual in question, and that was the target of my question. Even if the average intelligences of different races would turn out to be statistically indistinguishable, there would still be the question of knowing individual differences and using them in making decisions that would concern employment and education, but wouldn't be limited to only those examples. Would this be any more "moral" than scientifically based racism? Should everyone be granted equal opportunities, even if it is certain that some people have extremely lower chances of realizing those opportunities, although the cost of providing those opportunities would be the same or even higher, and would probably be funded mostly by the more capable individuals? Would it be wrong to limit someones opportunities to bounds that the person in question could realistically achieve, instead of providing opportunities to strive higher, regardless of the virtually non-existent chances of success? If at some point we would reach a point where it was clear that there are more "less capable" people born than there are assignments for them, should we aim to use scientific methods to artificially increase the birth-rate of "more capable" individuals?
If Enmos does not have the right to force everyone to think as he does, then what right do some other people have to do actions that affect other people against their will? That is, after all, what racism is about, isn't it? While it is certain that Enmos, even if he genuinely wished to subject everyones thoughts under his will, would not have any methods of doing so, and in the same time there are plenty of tools available for racists to further their cause against other people.
Lots of people don't want to get fat and ugly, old and wrinkled, but they do anyway! And interestingly, you say no one wants "War, abuse, racial killings, ghetto's, drugs use etc.", .....so how do you explain that it's prevalent all over the world? If "no one" wants such things, then why is it happening? Baron Max
No, racism is about disliking or hating people of different races. What you're talking about is ...ACTING... on those hates or dislikes. Those are two different things!! Again, if people want to hate or dislike anyone else, they should be free to do it. Nothing in that statement says that they should be allowed to hang them, or shoot them, or assault them, etc. Baron Max
Trolling again I see. I think by now you should know better. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well this brings up the question of if someone genuinely wants to be abused himself, does it grant him the right to abuse others as well? I would improve your reasoning to cover a more general case, and would say that it is wrong because wants their own will to be overruled by someone elses. The reason that such things a prevalent in the world, as the Baron has pointed out, is that people generally have no dislike for overruling others' will with their own, if they have the capabilities. Of course there are a lot of cases in the world where a single person or a limited group has the right to decide for others, either by getting "the right" to do so by democratic elections or by chance, which virtually nobody objects. We acknowledge the right of the owner of a company to make decisions even against the will of his employees, although the decision affects them as well. However, there is a set of rights that have been generally agreed to, that have been artificially given a higher status than other cases, and they are usually referred to as basic human rights. Whether or not the "general agreement" has been reached unanimously, by majority rule or by the will of some individuals is an open subject, and due to its subjective nature will probably be always a debatable topic.
Your post about Enmos wanting everyone to think like him suggested to me that you are referring to actively pursuing the will as well, instead of only thinking about it. If I was mistaken, I stand corrected. People hate others for an endless number of valid and invalid reasons, and there is no reason that should be prohibited, it is a human trait to do so. What remains an open question, is whether or not it is entirely possible to keep your actions unaffected by your thoughts. Hate crimes, after all, are not so rare even today.
Watson also once said that stupidity is a diease and that we should be working for a cure for stupid people (as well as a cure for the ugly women of the world): http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3451 Oh well, one more racist crank in the world.
That's the great thing about Science, in a decade or so we'll know if he was right or wrong. I can wait until then to have this debate.
No one can cure stupidity because there is no set line/standard/rule for what exactly stupidity is. You'd first have to establish what intelligence is. Then, when they did establish what intelligence was, how would they test for it? People take tests differently. Some do well on multiple choice tests. Some do well on word problems. Some do well on open book/notes tests.* You could have two people of very similar level of intelligence; you could give them two identical tests. One might score very high and one might not. ** I believe intelligence is the ability to figure things out. Intelligence is not knowledge. However, knowledge can help one's ability to figure things out. *You might look at that statement and laugh, but taking an open book/notes test does NOT guarantee that you will ace it. If you can't take notes properly or don't know how to research the information you are looking for, you can do just as badly as if you weren't allowed to use notes. **My SAT score in high school was a bland mediocre 960. However, my ASVAB score was a 91 (out of 99) and my GT score was a 134. Scores like that more or less guaranteed me any job the military had to offer. Anyone here who has served in the U.S. armed forces knows what kind of scores those are. I've also taken various I.Q. tests (although not the official Mensa test, which I'd like to take) I've taken over the past few years range from a 116 (well above average) to a 131 (brilliant, but not quite genius). Was my SAT score a fluke? Was I having a bad day? Was the test worded to where I didn't understand it? I did not post these scores to brag, but to augment my point about people taking tests differently. I've met others who have scored much lower scores than I have and I wouldn't consider them any less intelligent than me; they just think and figure things out differently than myself. I've still had my fair share of brain farts and less than intelligent decisions that I've made before. There are just too many factors to consider when gauging intelligence. And speaking of gauging intelligence, who would actually be qualified to determine standards of intelligence?
Suggesting that racial differences exist is racist to some people. Especially when the comparisons make someone else look worse than whites. Criticizing whites or Christians though is never a problem.
What are you talking about? Most scientists will toe the PC line because their jobs depend on it. See above. So it takes courage to run away? Regardless, scientists tend to be apolitical whereas artists are not. Maybe they are more comfortable and better liars. Now you're starting to make sense. I didn't think anyone was lower than a politician. There are plenty. After all, their jobs depend on it.
Even at best, if Dawkins WAS actually ranting, he never suggested locking up anyone. If racist, as defined by you, is the accusation, you may want to look in the mirror first.
Yeah, you're mistaken. In nothing I said did I suggest any approval for taking action, only that hate/dislike is a part of human nature and to deny it is nothing more than sticking ones head in the sand. Thinking about committing a crime is much different from committing that crime. If we had some way of knowing that someone "might" commit, say, murder, would you approve of us throwing him into prison for life? Or for that matter, punishing him in any way? The problem with "racism", as I see it, is too many people make the direct connection to dislike or hate to some harmful physical action. That's two separate and distinct issues. Baron Max
