Thread: In the defense of a racist.

Originally Posted by sycld

Atmosfear... Christ.

It's not just the "liberal agenda" anymore.

First of all, I'm amazed that you are jumping so quickly to this guy's defense and calling him a "rational human being," as though you know him at all, and that his affiliation with the Klan could at all be a rational "reaction to life experiences" (now if that doesn't sound like a PC phrase, I don't know what is.) I mean I suppose you then think it's a "rational reaction to life experiences" for black people to become violently militant against white people when they too have been persecuted, right?

I didn't say he was a rational human being. In fact, I later condemned the Klan.

Originally Posted by sycld

Secondly, I'm also amazed that you are so confident about how much our tendency to prejudice in the 20th century is imposed on us by the incidences of our history and how much is "innate."

Why are you amazed? Do you believe in eugenics?

Originally Posted by sycld

As a person with a scientific bent myself, I have to say that for all I know it is possible that one genetically isolated population has on average superior intelligence in general to another genetically isolated population. But why the fuck shouldn't every human being be given as equal of a chance as possible to rise or fall based on his own merits rather than based upon whatever average characteristics his or her population of people exhibits?

Where you end depends on where you start.

Originally Posted by sycld

And then there are other questions to ask-- What is the spread in this distribution about the average? Are there are other predictors that even more strongly determine intelligence? As researchers have shown, there is generally a greater genetic spread within individual populations that there is a spread between the average genes of one population compared to another.

Depends on the size of the population and the traits you're selecting for.

Originally Posted by sycld

There is more evidence that ethnocentricism is something which is a bit more innate than we once thought. Nonetheless, if there is an innate tendency to be ethnocentric, does that make it "good" to feel that way? Is nepotism in every single context necessarily good? There are positive expressions of ethnic pride as well as ones which are by and large harmful, just as there are positive expressions of love for family just as there are ones which are harmful.

If every culture is ethnocentric, why is it our responsibility to rise above?

Originally Posted by sycld

Also, there are certainly some aspects of all cultures which are "equal" in the sense that one culture's counterpart shouldn't completely displace another's. For example, it would be a great loss to all people if any one culture's literary, artistic, or musical traditions were simply lost forever. On the other hand, I'm not going to argue that it's okay for women to be marginalized or for slaves to be held just because it's occurring in another culture.

It would only be a loss to the limited number of people who would have been exposed to it, would have enjoyed it, and would have paid to have it protected.

Originally Posted by MrTroy

1.

2.

3.

yea....

"a" is an indefinite article you moron

Originally Posted by MrTroy

I believe the context you were using it in was to address his specifically, not a general classification. As in him specifically and not "a person".

You continue believing whatever the fuck you want and I'll continue being a primary source on the subject, fuckwit.