?SCC wrote:Don't need genetics to create an Eden-Olympia 'Super Cannes', just need a big ego. I think we are all aware that humans are generally full of themselves.
I thought we were going to discuss objective research not subjective theorem. I guess the old kind of philosophy is alive and well. I was interested in the smaller sagacity vs the bigger one that Nietzsche and modern genetics throws up. Self determinism in the genes? I think that is the whole point of genetics no? Darwin's natural selection. Survival of the fuck-est. If we fire blanks is that genetic pre-determinism? If we think we are 'really great drivers' are we in fact so? etcIn the hills above Cannes, a European elite has gathered in the business-park Eden-Olympia, a closed society that offers its privileged residents luxury homes, private doctors, private security forces, their own psychiatrists, and other conveniences required by the modern businessman. The book's protagonist, Paul, quits his job as an editor and moves to Eden-Olympia with his wife Jane when she is offered a job there as a pediatrician. At first glance, Eden-Olympia seems the ideal workers' paradise, but beneath its glittering, glass-wall surface, all is not well. For if things are running smoothly, then why are all the residents — these well-established businessmen, doctors, architects, and producers — all suffering heavily from stress and insomnia? And why did Jane's predecessor, the well-liked and apparently quite sane David Greenwood, go to work one day with an assault rifle strapped over his shoulders, murdering several of his friends and co-workers, before he put the rifle to his own head?
Genetics and Eugenics
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
You really are all over the place now. how in hell is this is a bizarre argument? i offered a very clear definition of racism. that definition is itself objective and has no value attached to it. it is what it is.Jacked Camry wrote:
You note yourself that racism is "a very loaded word with all sorts of subjective negative connotations". Then you try to consider whether something is racist when you strip away all those negative connotations. This is a bizarre argument. How can something be racist without negative connotations, when that is the very definition of racism? .................... So what are you saying here? That there in fact IS a non-pejorative way to describe someone as racist? You're all over the place.
society on the underhand has (rightfully imho) assigned a lot of pejorative meaning to the term -- starting around the 1960s and up until now. prior to the 1960s "racism" did not have such negative baggage attached t it. race-scientists and eugenicists were respected professions. racist arguments were common arguments and carried much less baggage than they do today and the word was not necessarily considered pejorative.
i personally am proud of the progress humanity has made since 1960 in the name of fighting racism. we certainly have a long way to go but we have made considerable progress. i fear that new aspects of race supremacy are now being introduced packaged in a fancy gift wrap and bow under the guise of "Genetic research'. Any article claiming genetic superiority for a specific group on any human trait like intelligence needs to set off immediate alarm bells. as i said in a previous post --- you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
you are continuing to miss the point here. racism is an objective term. it defines a belief set that certain races are genetically pre-programmed to be inferior or superior on specific traits of value to humanity.Jacked Camry wrote: I think I can be forgiven for taking this point as meaning that you were attempting to say that your characterization of both MoodyMac and myself as advancing a racist viewpoint was not intended necessarily to have a negative connotation. Or of you trying to somehow shoehorn us into accepting that our point of view was racist but that this is okay because it wasn't racist in a negative sense. It is either racist, with its negative connotations, or it is not.
it is up to the user/reader of the term to decide what values to assign to the term. i indeed use the term in a pejorative way as i believe most sensible people would. another reader might disagree and assign a neutral or positive value to the term. certainly it not hard to find "Racist? so what" arguments today. a lot of people view negative associations with 'racism" as just "pc bullshit" and attach no pejorative meaning to the term. i do not share their views.
although you take issue with the term "racist" you seem to think actual race-typing is ok -- as long as it is backed by science.
i challenge this as well.
thank you for the english lesson. have you considered a career change?Jacked Camry wrote:
Let's use Merriam-Webster as you're American.
con·jec·ture noun \kən-ˈjek-chər\: an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence
be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\: a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true
Do you see the difference? The difference is in the "feeling" aspect, the part that brings emotion and all that is vested in that into play. For example, science is dispassionate, or at least it is supposed to be. I will invest my time as a scientist in investigating ideas I believe are worthwhile. In order for my science to become worthwhile, I will make conjectures which will then have to be verified one way or another. At that point, my beliefs are irrelevant, and if I skew my science towards the outcome I am hoping for, then it becomes bad science and my work is inevitably headed for the trash can. My responsibility as a scientist is to publish my results and the data used to come to the conclusions I have made, such that they can add to the body of knowledge whether right or wrong and if it is important enough that it can be reproduced by others.
The distinction is both important and critical. You are once again trying to infer something that is not being said. I have no emotional stake in my conjecture, I can accept the results regardless of how they turn out and it is not connected to my own ethnicity.
i am fully aware of the definitions of these terms. i am also aware that they are not absolutely discrete terms. in fact if you do a word map exercise you will find that speculate is a synonym of both conjecture and believe --- thus showing how closely related they are. in fact i would suggest that belief is simply a step up from conjecture on a continuum scale.
i get what you are saying in terms of scientific process and hypothesis testing but i am engaging you from a human perspective instead. in real world, among humans, and where racism exists, there is a huge overlap with conjecture and belief. in fact conjecture very quickly becomes belief among humans as we saw with people on both sides running wild with the cochran study.
one thing i am picking up from our exchanges (beyond the word twisting and smearing attempts) is that we do seem to be speaking different languages. i am engaging you on a human platform and thus am interested in ethics and implications and all the fuzziness that goes with such human questions.
you seem to have difficulty interacting on this level and wish to cut off all discussion except for scientific and technical aspects. that is not intended as an insult, but just an observation that partially explains why we continue to butt heads.
fair enough --- good for you and there is no point in my saying you believe differently because i cannot prove it. i do think that such a pov is somewhat contrary to human nature though, and that had aryan supremacy links been provided you would have been far less inclined to pursue the topic than you were on that thread.Jacked Camry wrote:
Would I be less receptive to studies claiming genetic advantages in intelligence for certain groups other than my own? Absolutely not. That would be totally anti-thetical to my worldview as a scientist as I noted previously. I might as well throw my thirty years of life's work in the trash if I were to think that. It is a much stronger part of my identity than being a Jew is, especially as I am not even the slightest bit religious. The first word I would use to describe myself is "engineer". I guess you're saying perhaps that I may do so only in this case because it involves the Ashkenazi group which I am ethnically a part of. Similarly, that would be a glaring inconsistency that would be quite difficult for someone as analytical as I am by nature to live with.
Rain Dog wrote:to that end, here is a very interesting read from a mainstream Jewish perspective on the entire ashkenazi - intelligence debate. it is a long read and i have some issues with it and cannot really identify with the strong ethnographic perspective but it is very thought provoking in many ways and makes some excellent points.
Namely that regardless of whether the science is valid or not it has at least two negative implications for Jews:
1) it potentially cheapens the historic achievements of Jewish culture by attributing something that is "God Given" or "Nature-Driven".
2) The argument for superiority could itself be viewed as "anti-Semitic" or at least be used to strengthen anti-semitic arguments by emphasizing how "Jews" are genetically different.
her writing on this is very interesting as her experienced mirrored mine. i had never heard of this Ashkenazim supremacy theory until jm posted the links to it. i found the links jm posted to be highly unreliable (immortal-life etc.) thus, i decided to search myself for discussions on the original study by henry harpending and gregory cochran. what i found was far-right pro-israel groups cheering the study as validation of being "chosen" or otherwise denigrating arabs, mainstream Jews like abe foxman cautiously embracing he study in a self-congratulatory way, and renown antisemites like Kevin Macdonald and David Duke making arguments like "see i old you so --- they really are different -- so beware"
what was notably absent from most discussions was the quality of the science itself and implications of the argument (other than self congratulatory back slapping and it's related cousin -- anti-semitic arguments).
i hoe you take the time to read this, as it might actually help you shift your perspective as to wandering down the trail of race-trait genetics.
here is the link.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/f ... ndex1.html
Jacked Camry wrote: Thanks for the link, but don't know if I will be able to get to it. This aspect of the discussion is not my focus on this thread, and is why I removed it from the other thread. You can carry on if you like, but as I noted several times, I would appreciate it if you would keep those aspects within the Waffen SS thread and keep this one focused on the far more interesting and more widely applicable topic of genetics and eugenics.
the article very much deserves to be on this thread rather than th israel thread as it has nothing to do with israel and everything to do with the implications of race-typing. of course it is up to you whether you want to read it or not, but i think anyone genuinely interested in the topic would find it a most worthwhile read.
Last edited by Rain Dog on Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs; Oh, how we danced and you Whispered to me ... You'll never be going back home
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
??????? "eden-olympia super cannes" wtf?SCC wrote:
Don't need genetics to create an Eden-Olympia 'Super Cannes', just need a big ego. I think we are all aware that humans are generally full of themselves.
I thought we were going to discuss objective research not subjective theorem. I guess the old kind of philosophy is alive and well. I was interested in the smaller sagacity vs the bigger one that Nietzsche and modern genetics throws up. Self determinism in the genes? I think that is the whole point of genetics no? Darwin's natural selection. Survival of the fuck-est. If we fire blanks is that genetic pre-determinism? If we think we are 'really great drivers' are we in fact so? etcIn the hills above Cannes, a European elite has gathered in the business-park Eden-Olympia, a closed society that offers its privileged residents luxury homes, private doctors, private security forces, their own psychiatrists, and other conveniences required by the modern businessman. The book's protagonist, Paul, quits his job as an editor and moves to Eden-Olympia with his wife Jane when she is offered a job there as a pediatrician. At first glance, Eden-Olympia seems the ideal workers' paradise, but beneath its glittering, glass-wall surface, all is not well. For if things are running smoothly, then why are all the residents — these well-established businessmen, doctors, architects, and producers — all suffering heavily from stress and insomnia? And why did Jane's predecessor, the well-liked and apparently quite sane David Greenwood, go to work one day with an assault rifle strapped over his shoulders, murdering several of his friends and co-workers, before he put the rifle to his own head?
Here's one of my fav genetic facts: We are all linked by our genes to the very first life on Earth. Some weird plant.
How? because our parents had us, their parents had them, etc etc etc going all the way back 3.5 billion years (give a day or two).
try posting when sober next time.
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs; Oh, how we danced and you Whispered to me ... You'll never be going back home
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
My point of including J.G. Ballads ideas was to put some real world perspective into the discussion. I think we are at much greater threat from the likes of Ballad's ideas than genetics. I'm sure genetics research will eventually change the way we do things, but it takes a long, long time. I'm pretty sure you'll find the first aspects of it being used in business though.Jacked Camry wrote:
?
K440 : Lucky cheese for the gentry; poultry and death for the peasants.
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad."
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad."
Think elite groups and maybe you'll see a connection. Somehow I doubt it.Rain Dog wrote:??????? "eden-olympia super cannes" wtf?SCC wrote:
Don't need genetics to create an Eden-Olympia 'Super Cannes', just need a big ego. I think we are all aware that humans are generally full of themselves.
I thought we were going to discuss objective research not subjective theorem. I guess the old kind of philosophy is alive and well. I was interested in the smaller sagacity vs the bigger one that Nietzsche and modern genetics throws up. Self determinism in the genes? I think that is the whole point of genetics no? Darwin's natural selection. Survival of the fuck-est. If we fire blanks is that genetic pre-determinism? If we think we are 'really great drivers' are we in fact so? etcIn the hills above Cannes, a European elite has gathered in the business-park Eden-Olympia, a closed society that offers its privileged residents luxury homes, private doctors, private security forces, their own psychiatrists, and other conveniences required by the modern businessman. The book's protagonist, Paul, quits his job as an editor and moves to Eden-Olympia with his wife Jane when she is offered a job there as a pediatrician. At first glance, Eden-Olympia seems the ideal workers' paradise, but beneath its glittering, glass-wall surface, all is not well. For if things are running smoothly, then why are all the residents — these well-established businessmen, doctors, architects, and producers — all suffering heavily from stress and insomnia? And why did Jane's predecessor, the well-liked and apparently quite sane David Greenwood, go to work one day with an assault rifle strapped over his shoulders, murdering several of his friends and co-workers, before he put the rifle to his own head?
Here's one of my fav genetic facts: We are all linked by our genes to the very first life on Earth. Some weird plant.
How? because our parents had us, their parents had them, etc etc etc going all the way back 3.5 billion years (give a day or two).
try posting when sober next time.
What do you think of Stanford Uni and its genetics department?
K440 : Lucky cheese for the gentry; poultry and death for the peasants.
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad."
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad."
nope i see no connections as to the topic and your drivel of olympia-eden whatever.SCC wrote: Think elite groups and maybe you'll see a connection. Somehow I doubt it.
What do you think of Stanford Uni and its genetics department?
then again i rarely do when reading your posts.
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs; Oh, how we danced and you Whispered to me ... You'll never be going back home
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
Whatever, go back to your Talk Radio discussion with Jacked.Rain Dog wrote:nope i see no connections as to the topic and your drivel of olympia-eden whatever.SCC wrote: Think elite groups and maybe you'll see a connection. Somehow I doubt it.
What do you think of Stanford Uni and its genetics department?
then again i rarely do when reading your posts.
K440 : Lucky cheese for the gentry; poultry and death for the peasants.
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad."
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he read made him mad."
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
As this is a somewhat related topic (at least in my opinion), what do you think about the inevitable (once again, it's already happened and is increasingly used) use of devices that integrate with people, including implanted neural devices? These could potentially integrate people and computers for example.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment ... _engineer/
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment ... _engineer/
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
Uh...okay. So my point is not valid because the word wasn't used that way 50 years ago?Rain Dog wrote:You really are all over the place now. how in hell is this is a bizarre argument? i offered a very clear definition of racism. that definition is itself objective and has no value attached to it. it is what it is.Jacked Camry wrote:
You note yourself that racism is "a very loaded word with all sorts of subjective negative connotations". Then you try to consider whether something is racist when you strip away all those negative connotations. This is a bizarre argument. How can something be racist without negative connotations, when that is the very definition of racism? .................... So what are you saying here? That there in fact IS a non-pejorative way to describe someone as racist? You're all over the place.
society on the underhand has (rightfully imho) assigned a lot of pejorative meaning to the term -- starting around the 1960s and up until now. prior to the 1960s "racism" did not have such negative baggage attached t it. race-scientists and eugenicists were respected professions. racist arguments were common arguments and carried much less baggage than they do today and the word was not necessarily considered pejorative.
i personally am proud of the progress humanity has made since 1960 in the name of fighting racism. we certainly have a long way to go but we have made considerable progress. i fear that new aspects of race supremacy are now being introduced packaged in a fancy gift wrap and bow under the guise of "Genetic research'. Any article claiming genetic superiority for a specific group on any human trait like intelligence needs to set off immediate alarm bells. as i said in a previous post --- you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
I have never heard the use of the term in this way. And now you're saying that indeed you WERE using it in the "pejorative" way. Can you see why your arguments confuse me sometimes?Rain Dog wrote:you are continuing to miss the point here. racism is an objective term. it defines a belief set that certain races are genetically pre-programmed to be inferior or superior on specific traits of value to humanity.Jacked Camry wrote: I think I can be forgiven for taking this point as meaning that you were attempting to say that your characterization of both MoodyMac and myself as advancing a racist viewpoint was not intended necessarily to have a negative connotation. Or of you trying to somehow shoehorn us into accepting that our point of view was racist but that this is okay because it wasn't racist in a negative sense. It is either racist, with its negative connotations, or it is not.
it is up to the user/reader of the term to decide what values to assign to the term. i indeed use the term in a pejorative way as i believe most sensible people would. another reader might disagree and assign a neutral or positive value to the term. certainly it not hard to find "Racist? so what" arguments today. a lot of people view negative associations with 'racism" as just "pc bullshit" and attach no pejorative meaning to the term. i do not share their views.
although you take issue with the term "racist" you seem to think actual race-typing is ok -- as long as it is backed by science.
i challenge this as well.
If science shows clear genetic traits that are maintained by different races, do I accept those conclusions? Sure. And I take it that you do not. So you reject that Black people are more prone to sickle cell anemia than other groups because that's race-typing for example?
Sure, conjecture is on a continuum that proceeds to belief. But it's not belief. There's a difference. They are not synonyms. Perhaps I should have been an English teacher since I actually believe that what words you write convey the actual meanings they have whereas you are more interpretive in your reading - words mean whatever you think they mean in the context of your argument. While we seldom seem to agree, I think you can understand how it becomes frustrating to argue about things which are based on your interpretation rather than on what was actually written.Rain Dog wrote:thank you for the english lesson. have you considered a career change?Jacked Camry wrote:
Let's use Merriam-Webster as you're American.
con·jec·ture noun \kən-ˈjek-chər\: an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence
be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\: a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true
Do you see the difference? The difference is in the "feeling" aspect, the part that brings emotion and all that is vested in that into play. For example, science is dispassionate, or at least it is supposed to be. I will invest my time as a scientist in investigating ideas I believe are worthwhile. In order for my science to become worthwhile, I will make conjectures which will then have to be verified one way or another. At that point, my beliefs are irrelevant, and if I skew my science towards the outcome I am hoping for, then it becomes bad science and my work is inevitably headed for the trash can. My responsibility as a scientist is to publish my results and the data used to come to the conclusions I have made, such that they can add to the body of knowledge whether right or wrong and if it is important enough that it can be reproduced by others.
The distinction is both important and critical. You are once again trying to infer something that is not being said. I have no emotional stake in my conjecture, I can accept the results regardless of how they turn out and it is not connected to my own ethnicity.
i am fully aware of the definitions of these terms. i am also aware that they are not absolutely discrete terms. in fact if you do a word map exercise you will find that speculate is a synonym of both conjecture and believe --- thus showing how closely related they are. in fact i would suggest that belief is simply a step up from conjecture on a continuum scale.
i get what you are saying in terms of scientific process and hypothesis testing but i am engaging you from a human perspective instead. in real world, among humans, and where racism exists, there is a huge overlap with conjecture and belief. in fact conjecture very quickly becomes belief among humans as we saw with people on both sides running wild with the cochran study.
one thing i am picking up from our exchanges (beyond the word twisting and smearing attempts) is that we do seem to be speaking different languages. i am engaging you on a human platform and thus am interested in ethics and implications and all the fuzziness that goes with such human questions.
you seem to have difficulty interacting on this level and wish to cut off all discussion except for scientific and technical aspects. that is not intended as an insult, but just an observation that partially explains why we continue to butt heads.
I noted how the divide between the humanities and science is the tragedy that underlies Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I have always strove to reduce that divide so I don't look at the world in a black and white way. I think the problem in our communications is imprecise language and assumptions being made about what people are writing rather than what people are writing.
Okay. So you're going to stop going on about it then?Rain Dog wrote:fair enough --- good for you and there is no point in my saying you believe differently because i cannot prove it. i do think that such a pov is somewhat contrary to human nature though, and that had aryan supremacy links been provided you would have been far less inclined to pursue the topic than you were on that thread.Jacked Camry wrote:
Would I be less receptive to studies claiming genetic advantages in intelligence for certain groups other than my own? Absolutely not. That would be totally anti-thetical to my worldview as a scientist as I noted previously. I might as well throw my thirty years of life's work in the trash if I were to think that. It is a much stronger part of my identity than being a Jew is, especially as I am not even the slightest bit religious. The first word I would use to describe myself is "engineer". I guess you're saying perhaps that I may do so only in this case because it involves the Ashkenazi group which I am ethnically a part of. Similarly, that would be a glaring inconsistency that would be quite difficult for someone as analytical as I am by nature to live with.
Congratulations! You have found a way to drag this discussion back into your obsession then. But I won't be talking about it because it will derail this discussion regardless of its merits.Rain Dog wrote:Rain Dog wrote:to that end, here is a very interesting read from a mainstream Jewish perspective on the entire ashkenazi - intelligence debate. it is a long read and i have some issues with it and cannot really identify with the strong ethnographic perspective but it is very thought provoking in many ways and makes some excellent points.
Namely that regardless of whether the science is valid or not it has at least two negative implications for Jews:
1) it potentially cheapens the historic achievements of Jewish culture by attributing something that is "God Given" or "Nature-Driven".
2) The argument for superiority could itself be viewed as "anti-Semitic" or at least be used to strengthen anti-semitic arguments by emphasizing how "Jews" are genetically different.
her writing on this is very interesting as her experienced mirrored mine. i had never heard of this Ashkenazim supremacy theory until jm posted the links to it. i found the links jm posted to be highly unreliable (immortal-life etc.) thus, i decided to search myself for discussions on the original study by henry harpending and gregory cochran. what i found was far-right pro-israel groups cheering the study as validation of being "chosen" or otherwise denigrating arabs, mainstream Jews like abe foxman cautiously embracing he study in a self-congratulatory way, and renown antisemites like Kevin Macdonald and David Duke making arguments like "see i old you so --- they really are different -- so beware"
what was notably absent from most discussions was the quality of the science itself and implications of the argument (other than self congratulatory back slapping and it's related cousin -- anti-semitic arguments).
i hoe you take the time to read this, as it might actually help you shift your perspective as to wandering down the trail of race-trait genetics.
here is the link.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/f ... ndex1.htmlJacked Camry wrote: Thanks for the link, but don't know if I will be able to get to it. This aspect of the discussion is not my focus on this thread, and is why I removed it from the other thread. You can carry on if you like, but as I noted several times, I would appreciate it if you would keep those aspects within the Waffen SS thread and keep this one focused on the far more interesting and more widely applicable topic of genetics and eugenics.
the article very much deserves to be on this thread rather than th israel thread as it has nothing to do with israel and everything to do with the implications of race-typing. of course it is up to you whether you want to read it or not, but i think anyone genuinely interested in the topic would find it a most worthwhile read.
jesus. i was just about to reply to your question on the use of neural implants. i (foolishly evidently) assumed you were now willing to raise the level of discourse and as i actually have some experience with neural networks and AI (i actually do have more exposure to science and technology than you realize) i though i could offer a pov..Jacked Camry wrote:Uh...okay. So my point is not valid because the word wasn't used that way 50 years ago?Rain Dog wrote:You really are all over the place now. how in hell is this is a bizarre argument? i offered a very clear definition of racism. that definition is itself objective and has no value attached to it. it is what it is.Jacked Camry wrote:
You note yourself that racism is "a very loaded word with all sorts of subjective negative connotations". Then you try to consider whether something is racist when you strip away all those negative connotations. This is a bizarre argument. How can something be racist without negative connotations, when that is the very definition of racism? .................... So what are you saying here? That there in fact IS a non-pejorative way to describe someone as racist? You're all over the place.
society on the underhand has (rightfully imho) assigned a lot of pejorative meaning to the term -- starting around the 1960s and up until now. prior to the 1960s "racism" did not have such negative baggage attached t it. race-scientists and eugenicists were respected professions. racist arguments were common arguments and carried much less baggage than they do today and the word was not necessarily considered pejorative.
i personally am proud of the progress humanity has made since 1960 in the name of fighting racism. we certainly have a long way to go but we have made considerable progress. i fear that new aspects of race supremacy are now being introduced packaged in a fancy gift wrap and bow under the guise of "Genetic research'. Any article claiming genetic superiority for a specific group on any human trait like intelligence needs to set off immediate alarm bells. as i said in a previous post --- you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
I have never heard the use of the term in this way. And now you're saying that indeed you WERE using it in the "pejorative" way. Can you see why your arguments confuse me sometimes?Rain Dog wrote:you are continuing to miss the point here. racism is an objective term. it defines a belief set that certain races are genetically pre-programmed to be inferior or superior on specific traits of value to humanity.Jacked Camry wrote: I think I can be forgiven for taking this point as meaning that you were attempting to say that your characterization of both MoodyMac and myself as advancing a racist viewpoint was not intended necessarily to have a negative connotation. Or of you trying to somehow shoehorn us into accepting that our point of view was racist but that this is okay because it wasn't racist in a negative sense. It is either racist, with its negative connotations, or it is not.
it is up to the user/reader of the term to decide what values to assign to the term. i indeed use the term in a pejorative way as i believe most sensible people would. another reader might disagree and assign a neutral or positive value to the term. certainly it not hard to find "Racist? so what" arguments today. a lot of people view negative associations with 'racism" as just "pc bullshit" and attach no pejorative meaning to the term. i do not share their views.
although you take issue with the term "racist" you seem to think actual race-typing is ok -- as long as it is backed by science.
i challenge this as well.
If science shows clear genetic traits that are maintained by different races, do I accept those conclusions? Sure. And I take it that you do not. So you reject that Black people are more prone to sickle cell anemia than other groups because that's race-typing for example?
Sure, conjecture is on a continuum that proceeds to belief. But it's not belief. There's a difference. They are not synonyms. Perhaps I should have been an English teacher since I actually believe that what words you write convey the actual meanings they have whereas you are more interpretive in your reading - words mean whatever you think they mean in the context of your argument. While we seldom seem to agree, I think you can understand how it becomes frustrating to argue about things which are based on your interpretation rather than on what was actually written.Rain Dog wrote:thank you for the english lesson. have you considered a career change?Jacked Camry wrote:
Let's use Merriam-Webster as you're American.
con·jec·ture noun \kən-ˈjek-chər\: an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence
be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\: a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true
Do you see the difference? The difference is in the "feeling" aspect, the part that brings emotion and all that is vested in that into play. For example, science is dispassionate, or at least it is supposed to be. I will invest my time as a scientist in investigating ideas I believe are worthwhile. In order for my science to become worthwhile, I will make conjectures which will then have to be verified one way or another. At that point, my beliefs are irrelevant, and if I skew my science towards the outcome I am hoping for, then it becomes bad science and my work is inevitably headed for the trash can. My responsibility as a scientist is to publish my results and the data used to come to the conclusions I have made, such that they can add to the body of knowledge whether right or wrong and if it is important enough that it can be reproduced by others.
The distinction is both important and critical. You are once again trying to infer something that is not being said. I have no emotional stake in my conjecture, I can accept the results regardless of how they turn out and it is not connected to my own ethnicity.
i am fully aware of the definitions of these terms. i am also aware that they are not absolutely discrete terms. in fact if you do a word map exercise you will find that speculate is a synonym of both conjecture and believe --- thus showing how closely related they are. in fact i would suggest that belief is simply a step up from conjecture on a continuum scale.
i get what you are saying in terms of scientific process and hypothesis testing but i am engaging you from a human perspective instead. in real world, among humans, and where racism exists, there is a huge overlap with conjecture and belief. in fact conjecture very quickly becomes belief among humans as we saw with people on both sides running wild with the cochran study.
one thing i am picking up from our exchanges (beyond the word twisting and smearing attempts) is that we do seem to be speaking different languages. i am engaging you on a human platform and thus am interested in ethics and implications and all the fuzziness that goes with such human questions.
you seem to have difficulty interacting on this level and wish to cut off all discussion except for scientific and technical aspects. that is not intended as an insult, but just an observation that partially explains why we continue to butt heads.
I noted how the divide between the humanities and science is the tragedy that underlies Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I have always strove to reduce that divide so I don't look at the world in a black and white way. I think the problem in our communications is imprecise language and assumptions being made about what people are writing rather than what people are writing.
Okay. So you're going to stop going on about it then?Rain Dog wrote:fair enough --- good for you and there is no point in my saying you believe differently because i cannot prove it. i do think that such a pov is somewhat contrary to human nature though, and that had aryan supremacy links been provided you would have been far less inclined to pursue the topic than you were on that thread.Jacked Camry wrote:
Would I be less receptive to studies claiming genetic advantages in intelligence for certain groups other than my own? Absolutely not. That would be totally anti-thetical to my worldview as a scientist as I noted previously. I might as well throw my thirty years of life's work in the trash if I were to think that. It is a much stronger part of my identity than being a Jew is, especially as I am not even the slightest bit religious. The first word I would use to describe myself is "engineer". I guess you're saying perhaps that I may do so only in this case because it involves the Ashkenazi group which I am ethnically a part of. Similarly, that would be a glaring inconsistency that would be quite difficult for someone as analytical as I am by nature to live with.
Congratulations! You have found a way to drag this discussion back into your obsession then. But I won't be talking about it because it will derail this discussion regardless of its merits.Rain Dog wrote:Rain Dog wrote:to that end, here is a very interesting read from a mainstream Jewish perspective on the entire ashkenazi - intelligence debate. it is a long read and i have some issues with it and cannot really identify with the strong ethnographic perspective but it is very thought provoking in many ways and makes some excellent points.
Namely that regardless of whether the science is valid or not it has at least two negative implications for Jews:
1) it potentially cheapens the historic achievements of Jewish culture by attributing something that is "God Given" or "Nature-Driven".
2) The argument for superiority could itself be viewed as "anti-Semitic" or at least be used to strengthen anti-semitic arguments by emphasizing how "Jews" are genetically different.
her writing on this is very interesting as her experienced mirrored mine. i had never heard of this Ashkenazim supremacy theory until jm posted the links to it. i found the links jm posted to be highly unreliable (immortal-life etc.) thus, i decided to search myself for discussions on the original study by henry harpending and gregory cochran. what i found was far-right pro-israel groups cheering the study as validation of being "chosen" or otherwise denigrating arabs, mainstream Jews like abe foxman cautiously embracing he study in a self-congratulatory way, and renown antisemites like Kevin Macdonald and David Duke making arguments like "see i old you so --- they really are different -- so beware"
what was notably absent from most discussions was the quality of the science itself and implications of the argument (other than self congratulatory back slapping and it's related cousin -- anti-semitic arguments).
i hoe you take the time to read this, as it might actually help you shift your perspective as to wandering down the trail of race-trait genetics.
here is the link.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/f ... ndex1.htmlJacked Camry wrote: Thanks for the link, but don't know if I will be able to get to it. This aspect of the discussion is not my focus on this thread, and is why I removed it from the other thread. You can carry on if you like, but as I noted several times, I would appreciate it if you would keep those aspects within the Waffen SS thread and keep this one focused on the far more interesting and more widely applicable topic of genetics and eugenics.
the article very much deserves to be on this thread rather than th israel thread as it has nothing to do with israel and everything to do with the implications of race-typing. of course it is up to you whether you want to read it or not, but i think anyone genuinely interested in the topic would find it a most worthwhile read.
now you are you back with your normal argumentative techniques base on smearing, word twisting, strawman arguments and largely being obtuse in general.
to answer your questions:
1)JC " Uh...okay. So my point is not valid because the word wasn't used that way 50 years ago? .... I have never heard the use of the term in this way. And now you're saying that indeed you WERE using it in the "pejorative" way. Can you see why your arguments confuse me sometimes?
RD Uh ... yes --- your point is not valid because i have proved that the term "racism" has an objective meaning AND a subjective meaning. i indeed use the term in a pejorative way. not everybody does nor has the pejorative baggage always been attached to the term. it is not my problem if you are so easily confused by simple logic. i would prefer that the pejorative baggage attached to subjective meanings of "racism" would continue to grow linearly. some of the science that you have promoted or defended on here suggest that "racism" may once again become a mainstream acceptable outlook suggesting that pejorative associations with the term might be cyclical rather than linear. science seems to be redefining the term already although it seems blind on the ethical side in favor of a "let the chips fall where they may" outlook when it comes to racist arguments. that certainly seems to be your worldview.
2) JC "Sure, conjecture is on a continuum that proceeds to belief. But it's not belief. There's a difference."
RD: in a clinical lab setting the differentiations you mention have merit. in real life -- not really -- you are just trying to split hairs so that you can redefine "racist" to fit your "i am not racist but race-typing is good" approach to this topic. if one wanted to get philosophical we can say that all belief is conjecture as nothing can be known with 100% certainty. as i stated in my previous post conjecture and belief lie on a continuum, and in real life almost always overlap each other. one person's conjecture may become the 'belief" of many others quite quickly. this should really not be so hard for you to comprehend.
3) JC "If science shows clear genetic traits that are maintained by different races, do I accept those conclusions? Sure. And I take it that you do not. So you reject that Black people are more prone to sickle cell anemia than other groups because that's race-typing for example?"
RD: again with the strawman arguments. i have never argued that there are no hereditary traits inherent to certain races "sickle cell" being an example i raised myself earlier. unlike you i draw the line at race-typing on traits like intelligence, honesty, motivation and other traits which are typically assigned +/- values by people or societies. you still seem to fail to understand how flawed such science is and how dangerous such arguments always turn out to be.
4) JC: Congratulations! You have found a way to drag this discussion back into your obsession then. But I won't be talking about it because it will derail this discussion regardless of its merits.
RD: right on schedule ... i reply to your request that i move an article about the implications of race-typing to the israel thread, by informing you it is more appropriate to this thread and is a very worthwhile read for anyone interested in race-typing and it's implications. to you that is "obsessive". i will give you some credit though -- you finally refrained from using your very tired canards like "conspiracy theory" and "jew hating" ... then again the day is still young.
for the record the article you refuse to read was from new york magazine and by a Jewish author about some things Jewish people should think about in reacting to the Cochran-Harpending study --- but i am sure you will try to find some way to find something sinister in my posting the link.
it is also worth noting, that as arrogant and opinionated as you come across, you seem to refuse to read anything that might challenge your existing worldview.
your strawman arguments and smearing attempts aside it is very difficult to discuss anything with someone whose mind is so closed and who views the world in such black and white, non-human terms.
Taxi, we'd rather walk. Huddle a doorway with the rain dogs The Rum pours strong and thin. Beat out the dustman with the Rain Dogs; Oh, how we danced and you Whispered to me ... You'll never be going back home
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
Partial Lyrics - Tom Waits
I didn't even get my dog micro chipped when it became compulsory in NZ. I used a loophole to avoid it because my bitch was a working breed.Jacked Camry wrote:As this is a somewhat related topic (at least in my opinion), what do you think about the inevitable (once again, it's already happened and is increasingly used) use of devices that integrate with people, including implanted neural devices? These could potentially integrate people and computers for example.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment ... _engineer/
Growing up in an albeit liberal church, I was aware as a kid of the mark in the hand or head that was prophesied as being required in the future to buy or sell. I always thought that such a thing would be impossible to implement as people would surely reject such an idea. Not so much anymore. I think there are a lot of people who would willingly integrate themselves with micro chips, neural devices and other forms of cyber technology.
I won't though.
I think that advances of technology are useful, and inevitable, but invasive genetic manipulation and implanting human technology into the body are two things that I am not keen on.
If chipping for purposes of travel, or finance becomes compulsory I think we will see massive civil disobedience and conflict.
Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
Okay. If you say so. I think you're a bit of a nut at this point, frankly. Your paranoia about how things are going to escalate is everywhere.Rain Dog wrote:RD Uh ... yes --- your point is not valid because i have proved that the term "racism" has an objective meaning AND a subjective meaning. i indeed use the term in a pejorative way. not everybody does nor has the pejorative baggage always been attached to the term. it is not my problem if you are so easily confused by simple logic. i would prefer that the pejorative baggage attached to subjective meanings of "racism" would continue to grow linearly. some of the science that you have promoted or defended on here suggest that "racism" may once again become a mainstream acceptable outlook suggesting that pejorative associations with the term might be cyclical rather than linear. science seems to be redefining the term already although it seems blind on the ethical side in favor of a "let the chips fall where they may" outlook when it comes to racist arguments. that certainly seems to be your worldview.Jacked Camry wrote:1)JC " Uh...okay. So my point is not valid because the word wasn't used that way 50 years ago? .... I have never heard the use of the term in this way. And now you're saying that indeed you WERE using it in the "pejorative" way. Can you see why your arguments confuse me sometimes?
No, words have meanings and conjecture is not belief. Period.Rain Dog wrote:RD: in a clinical lab setting the differentiations you mention have merit. in real life -- not really -- you are just trying to split hairs so that you can redefine "racist" to fit your "i am not racist but race-typing is good" approach to this topic. if one wanted to get philosophical we can say that all belief is conjecture as nothing can be known with 100% certainty. as i stated in my previous post conjecture and belief lie on a continuum, and in real life almost always overlap each other. one person's conjecture may become the 'belief" of many others quite quickly. this should really not be so hard for you to comprehend.Jacked Camry wrote:2) JC "Sure, conjecture is on a continuum that proceeds to belief. But it's not belief. There's a difference."
So you accept that there are physical hereditary traits that are passed along specifically by different ethnic groups. You differentiate this in terms of intelligence which you believe to be entirely metaphysical. I have clearly and consistently advocated that there is a high probability that there are physical aspects to intelligence, hence there is likely a component of this that is passed along in specific ethnic groups. You have never addressed this aspect of my argument, only made a blanket claim that "intelligence is entirely behavioural". How you can know this is completely beyond my ken, and I doubt you would take me seriously if I claimed the opposite in a similar way.Rain Dog wrote:RD: again with the strawman arguments. i have never argued that there are no hereditary traits inherent to certain races "sickle cell" being an example i raised myself earlier. unlike you i draw the line at race-typing on traits like intelligence, honesty, motivation and other traits which are typically assigned +/- values by people or societies. you still seem to fail to understand how flawed such science is and how dangerous such arguments always turn out to be.Jacked Camry wrote:3) JC "If science shows clear genetic traits that are maintained by different races, do I accept those conclusions? Sure. And I take it that you do not. So you reject that Black people are more prone to sickle cell anemia than other groups because that's race-typing for example?"
Similarly, I have demonstrated through example, and through the links I began this discussion with, that behavioural aspects can also be genetically transmitted. So even if intelligence is entirely behavioural, there is still a possibility that aspects of this are transmitted genetically. Therefore I posit that there is a significant probability that some aspects of intelligence are transmitted genetically, and as a result one might indeed find higher likelihoods of intelligence (whatever and whenever we find out what that is) among the different ethnic populations.
You disagree with this, which I have no problem with. I think my point of view is one that is supported by the evidence we have so far. However, you then take your disagreement and start attaching values to it and motives to my conclusions. This is not logical or acceptable hence we keep fighting about it.
I don't care whether the author was Jewish and from New York, it's not relevant to what I am saying. I started this thread to bring out a discussion about genetics and eugenics away from the heated topic of Jews, Israel and Nazis. You have come here to try to extend that discussion because you're obsessed by it. Even you note that it is emotive and drags the conversation away from the interesting topic of genetics and eugenics. But you won't stop going on about it. Please, post this in the other thread, that's all I'm asking. I want to talk about genetics, not Jews. Hence my using the Sickle Cell example rather than Tay-Sachs.Rain Dog wrote:Jacked Camry wrote:4) JC: Congratulations! You have found a way to drag this discussion back into your obsession then. But I won't be talking about it because it will derail this discussion regardless of its merits.
RD: right on schedule ... i reply to your request that i move an article about the implications of race-typing to the israel thread, by informing you it is more appropriate to this thread and is a very worthwhile read for anyone interested in race-typing and it's implications. to you that is "obsessive". i will give you some credit though -- you finally refrained from using your very tired canards like "conspiracy theory" and "jew hating" ... then again the day is still young.
for the record the article you refuse to read was from new york magazine and by a Jewish author about some things Jewish people should think about in reacting to the Cochran-Harpending study --- but i am sure you will try to find some way to find something sinister in my posting the link.
it is also worth noting, that as arrogant and opinionated as you come across, you seem to refuse to read anything that might challenge your existing worldview.
your strawman arguments and smearing attempts aside it is very difficult to discuss anything with someone whose mind is so closed and who views the world in such black and white, non-human terms.
If you have experience and knowledge of neural implants, I'd be very interested to hear about it. Can you discuss it without going on about Jews for once?
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
We are again in agreement, although I wasn't aware of the "mark of the hand" thing. I imagine that the biblical literalists will start going apeshit when this happens, if they haven't already.MoodyMac wrote:I didn't even get my dog micro chipped when it became compulsory in NZ. I used a loophole to avoid it because my bitch was a working breed.Jacked Camry wrote:As this is a somewhat related topic (at least in my opinion), what do you think about the inevitable (once again, it's already happened and is increasingly used) use of devices that integrate with people, including implanted neural devices? These could potentially integrate people and computers for example.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment ... _engineer/
Growing up in an albeit liberal church, I was aware as a kid of the mark in the hand or head that was prophesied as being required in the future to buy or sell. I always thought that such a thing would be impossible to implement as people would surely reject such an idea. Not so much anymore. I think there are a lot of people who would willingly integrate themselves with micro chips, neural devices and other forms of cyber technology.
I won't though.
I think that advances of technology are useful, and inevitable, but invasive genetic manipulation and implanting human technology into the body are two things that I am not keen on.
If chipping for purposes of travel, or finance becomes compulsory I think we will see massive civil disobedience and conflict.
The implantation thing is going to become a conundrum, I'd reckon. I just hope that things like Google Glass are able to provide similar interfaces that are relatively seamless so it doesn't become common. What if you're trying to keep your job and livelihood and the competition are able to access Google and other information just by thinking about it and you're not? Gives them a big leg up and could threaten your very existence and force you into it.
How do you feel about nanobots injected into the bloodstream cruising around and looking for cancer cells or doing diagnostics, then eventually being excreted by the body?
In regards to medical nanobots, I think in any situation where a doctor or surgeon fully explains a procedure to a patient, and the patient willingly submits to a treatment its not a problem. Personally I'd rather go and die somewhere quietly with my family close by.Jacked Camry wrote:We are again in agreement, although I wasn't aware of the "mark of the hand" thing. I imagine that the biblical literalists will start going apeshit when this happens, if they haven't already.MoodyMac wrote:I didn't even get my dog micro chipped when it became compulsory in NZ. I used a loophole to avoid it because my bitch was a working breed.Jacked Camry wrote:As this is a somewhat related topic (at least in my opinion), what do you think about the inevitable (once again, it's already happened and is increasingly used) use of devices that integrate with people, including implanted neural devices? These could potentially integrate people and computers for example.
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comment ... _engineer/
Growing up in an albeit liberal church, I was aware as a kid of the mark in the hand or head that was prophesied as being required in the future to buy or sell. I always thought that such a thing would be impossible to implement as people would surely reject such an idea. Not so much anymore. I think there are a lot of people who would willingly integrate themselves with micro chips, neural devices and other forms of cyber technology.
I won't though.
I think that advances of technology are useful, and inevitable, but invasive genetic manipulation and implanting human technology into the body are two things that I am not keen on.
If chipping for purposes of travel, or finance becomes compulsory I think we will see massive civil disobedience and conflict.
The implantation thing is going to become a conundrum, I'd reckon. I just hope that things like Google Glass are able to provide similar interfaces that are relatively seamless so it doesn't become common. What if you're trying to keep your job and livelihood and the competition are able to access Google and other information just by thinking about it and you're not? Gives them a big leg up and could threaten your very existence and force you into it.
How do you feel about nanobots injected into the bloodstream cruising around and looking for cancer cells or doing diagnostics, then eventually being excreted by the body?
I think if ever there was a concerted effort by authorities to make a chip in the hand or head compulsory in order to function in society, that I would be taking prophecies in the Bible literally as well. I can see a day in the future where that could possibly happen. It will cause a huge amount of division and civil disorder though. If a majority of people start accepting voluntary chipping or other types of cybernetic implants first though, it won't be difficult to push it the rest of the way. Then those that refuse it will look like a bunch of crazy fundamentalists out of sync with the rest of society at best, and at worst as lunatic anarchists and terrorists.
For me as a liberal Christian, the 'mark' thing is the line in the sand. If it happens, then I will effectively be on the side of the 'lunatics'.
This is an interesting point. I'd like to use a group I am familiar with as an example.What if you're trying to keep your job and livelihood and the competition are able to access Google and other information just by thinking about it and you're not? Gives them a big leg up and could threaten your very existence and force you into it.
The Brethren are a cult like Christian sect found in N. America, Australia, UK, and New Zealand. Due to a passage in the Epistles that refers to our enemy being "the principalities and powers of the air", they refused to use T.V., radios, 2 way radios and later cell phones. Anything being transmitted through the air was liable to be in the territory of the enemy and not to be trusted. An engineer my Dad worked with ended up having to resign in the late 80's or early 90's due to the disadvantage he had not being able to use a two way radio.
More recently my Mum has been working as an English and History teacher at their high school campuses. They use video conference teaching so that Mum is able to teach students in different campuses at the same time. This is allowed because the systems are connected by cables, rather than satellites or transmitter towers. Recent graduates from their schools are now starting IT businesses, despite the fact that until just a few years ago use of computers was discouraged. They have found methods to utilise technology in ways that don't contradict their rules and doctrines. It might sound silly to us, but it does show that when a dissenting group supports each other in social, and financial matters, that survival is possible when they are able to apply such technology that they are comfortable with.
Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.