Why do PC Liberals hate/deny genetics so much?

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount

Originally posted by Dante2117
reply to post by MrDesolate

 

So you don't believe the concept of race exists...?

Whether he believes in race or not, I think (with all due respect) that you might be missing the point. A few posters on this thread seem to have problems with equal opportunity policies, but have implied that society would benefit from state intervention in the form of race-based policies. It'd just be nice to get to the bottom of how we're supposed to embrace these "differences" in practice without restricting individual freedoms.

Irrespective of what their arguments may be, race is a physical reality and is proven by our genomes.

As indicated by the thread starter, many choose to ignore the science and for whatever their own agenda's might be are trying to propagate the idea that the concept of race 'does not exist'. They're almost like the Creationists who ignore science and archaeology in order to suit their own pre-conceived views.

reply to post by Dante2117


I'll say it again.

"Race is a physical reality." Okay. So where do we go from here?

This is the one question no one will respond to. If, by and large, some racial groups are more or less able than others in certain areas, what do we do about that? Why won't anyone answer this?

All the studies concerning genetic variation do acknowledge our differences in genomes. However, some say there are discrete groups, while the majority believe the differences are clinal, and that the definitions of biological race from 18th century anthropologists are intellectually and ethically moribund.

However, lets say the differences (specifically concerning apititude) are discrete. I don't mind if this unequivocally the case, that is if you can prove it... unequivocally as said before. I don't think anyone cares about that. What they do care about are the moral implications that could arise from politics informed by such a scientific discovery. No one has been willing to answer that, but they say we should "embrace" the differences.

What does this mean? Tell me. Please??

reply to post by ihavenoaccount


Because the minute they answer your question they are going to be outed as a normal Stormfront ardent. I asked too, don't expect an answer. They are doing the old "Just asking questions" trolling,

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by ihavenoaccount

 

Because the minute they answer your question they are going to be outed as a normal Stormfront ardent. I asked too, don't expect an answer. They are doing the old "Just asking questions" trolling,

You are joking right?

Someone is automatically a 'Stormfront ardent' because they accept that according to science, there are genetic differences in the genomes of different races....?

The 'answer' to your question is simple, "do nothing". Why anyone have to 'do' anything?

But like I said earlier the view of the politically correct crowd is like that of Creationists, who because science goes against their preconceived views of how they want the world to be and keep telling themselves, they then choose to ignore the science and propagate an illusion.

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Dante2117

 

I'll say it again.

"Race is a physical reality." Okay. So where do we go from here?

This is the one question no one will respond to. If, by and large, some racial groups are more or less able than others in certain areas, what do we do about that? Why won't anyone answer this?

All the studies concerning genetic variation do acknowledge our differences in genomes. However, some say there are discrete groups, while the majority believe the differences are clinal, and that the definitions of biological race from 18th century anthropologists are intellectually and ethically moribund.

However, lets say the differences (specifically concerning apititude) are discrete. I don't mind if this unequivocally the case, that is if you can prove it... unequivocally as said before. I don't think anyone cares about that. What they do care about are the moral implications that could arise from politics informed by such a scientific discovery. No one has been willing to answer that, but they say we should "embrace" the differences.

What does this mean? Tell me. Please??

Are you proposing that scientific discoveries or facts be covered up because of their so-called 'moral implications'.....

And as I said in the previous post, nothing has to be 'done'. That's not what the discussion is about.

The issue here is that of people saying that 'race does not exist'......when it does, and is confirmed by science, not just anthropologists.

Originally posted by Dante2117
Are you proposing that scientific discoveries or facts be covered up because of their so-called 'moral implications'.....

And as I said in the previous post, nothing has to be 'done'. That's not what the discussion is about.

The issue here is that of people saying that 'race does not exist'......when it does, and is confirmed by science, not just anthropologists.

Please don't put words in my mouth. You know exactly what I mean. A lot of people are agreeing with you, that there are differences between groups. Our beef seems to be on the nature of those differences and how discrete they are. No one is asking for a cover-up, that's an anti-PC smear against balanced and diplomatic coverage of information.

As it stands, the jury's still out on specific differences concerning aptitude. None of the "PC liberals" here care about results that seem to confirm racial hierarchy in abilities, it's been said again and again. If it's true, fair enough. The studies can get published, and they should in my opinion. What they should not become is the backbone for justifying racial prejudice and racialism, whether it be on an individual or institutional level. The margin of error would be too large for comfort.

Originally posted by Dante2117


The 'answer' to your question is simple, "do nothing". Why anyone have to 'do' anything?

Then why bring it up?

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Dante2117


The 'answer' to your question is simple, "do nothing". Why anyone have to 'do' anything?

Then why bring it up?

Because some people on here are claiming that 'race does not exist'....when it does.
It is now confirmed by both anthropologists and scientists.

And the question was not brought up by me, but by the asker!

Originally posted by ihavenoaccount

Originally posted by Dante2117
Are you proposing that scientific discoveries or facts be covered up because of their so-called 'moral implications'.....

And as I said in the previous post, nothing has to be 'done'. That's not what the discussion is about.

The issue here is that of people saying that 'race does not exist'......when it does, and is confirmed by science, not just anthropologists.

Please don't put words in my mouth. You know exactly what I mean. A lot of people are agreeing with you, that there are differences between groups. Our beef seems to be on the nature of those differences and how discrete they are. No one is asking for a cover-up, that's an anti-PC smear against balanced and diplomatic coverage of information.

As it stands, the jury's still out on specific differences concerning aptitude. None of the "PC liberals" here care about results that seem to confirm racial hierarchy in abilities, it's been said again and again. If it's true, fair enough. The studies can get published, and they should in my opinion. What they should not become is the backbone for justifying racial prejudice and racialism, whether it be on an individual or institutional level. The margin of error would be too large for comfort.

The entire point of the thread is to demonstrate that those who claim 'race does not exist' and that it is 'merely a social construct' are in fact wrong, and this can now be proved by our genomes as well.

Originally posted by Dante2117


Because some people on here are claiming that 'race does not exist'....when it does.
It is now confirmed by both anthropologists and scientists.

No one here proclaimed race does not exist. The original author quoted David Duke and gave us the old "Multiculturalism is from Satan" speech. You cannot proclaim this person has good motives. We all get there is race, but why bring it up? And if the races are different what does it mean for society and what should be done about it?

Race definitely exists, there's no question that it does. However, the sociological constructs do not handle race in the appropriate ways. They often want to divide things up by races instead of incorporating races. Race exists, but due to hatred, ignorance, outright stupidity and prejudice, it isn't handled the way it should be.

Instead of using it as a reason for hatred and negativity, it should be used as a building block for inclusion. The problem isn't with having different races, the problem is with the idiots who want to discriminate, hate, be violent and separate races just to build their own ego because they have no positive qualities of their own. Since they have no positive qualities, they feel the need to paint an entire group with a brush of hatred to try to elevate themselves above a large number of people all at once with the least amount of effort possible.

The fault isn't in the race that's being targetted, the problem is in the ignorant bigots who try to make the races something they aren't for their own benefit.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Race definitely exists, there's no question that it does. However, the sociological constructs do not handle race in the appropriate ways. They often want to divide things up by races instead of incorporating races. Race exists, but due to hatred, ignorance, outright stupidity and prejudice, it isn't handled the way it should be.

Instead of using it as a reason for hatred and negativity, it should be used as a building block for inclusion. The problem isn't with having different races, the problem is with the idiots who want to discriminate, hate, be violent and separate races just to build their own ego because they have no positive qualities of their own. Since they have no positive qualities, they feel the need to paint an entire group with a brush of hatred to try to elevate themselves above a large number of people all at once with the least amount of effort possible.

The fault isn't in the race that's being targetted, the problem is in the ignorant bigots who try to make the races something they aren't for their own benefit.

That's a massive simplification for why conflict can exist between races.

People often don't just dislike other groups because of the colour of their skin but rather due to the nature of the differing culture, traditions, mentality, and way of life that is usually associated with that group.

The same 'racism' occurs between people of the same race as well, due to historical, cultural or linguistic differences.
For instance, what was once the multicultural Yugoslavia; war and genocide occurred on almost all sides and they were the same race of people. The main differences were as highlighted above: history, culture and language also religion.

For instance, any dislike for Arabs and Moslems in the West would be due more to cultural or religious practices instead of the colour of their skin even though they are Caucasian anyway.

reply to post by Dante2117


Tell me about it!
I'm a southerner that lived up North for a while. It's alive and well even in the same skin color groups.

I just wish people would get over all of the racism stuff, there's no reason for it (well, not justifiable reason anyway) and all it does is destroy, not build