Ah, so had it been obvious and controversial it would be illicit in your eyes.
So arguing against censorship is naive if it’s censorship of…science, because we shouldn’t be optimistic about the effects? Hmm. I thought economics was the dismal science 
You are an idiot. And you have likely not read anything about it. It is much more than a word. It was law in the U.S. for 75 years.
Habba, you are hopeless.
You keep pushing the censorship angle. I am not about that. I could care less if people discuss it (in fact that’s what we are doing here and I am not saying anything even close to “it shouldn’t be discussed,” am I???) I want people to realize that racial inquiry will inevitably lead to bad things. It always has. And if you had a philosophical mind (or even a curious one) you’d read about what the advocates of the scientifc method said about it (or what the anti-science folk said about it - I’ll give you a hint, it was the same thing).
So it’s not evil to say a black person is a better spokesperson for Nike shoes? I really don’t understand how in all hell you manage to take yourself seriously.
In the case of sickle cell, people of African descent generally have a more susceptible genetic makeup.
There, I said it.
Anyone want to start an ethnic cleansing now?
What is your problem? I gave you a valid application for this particular scientific study, and you continue to pester me.
Just because we are genetically different (‘superior’ and/or ‘inferior’) from each other, doesn’t mean we can’t live in respect of one another.
We aren’t discussing anything remotely scientific; only the ethics of discussing science.
Tell me, what is a philosophical mind? I’d like to know where I could procure one.
You’re just failing to see the implications of scientific inquiry.
Why is it done?
I would also argue that once people have “scientific” arguments for their superiority or other’s inferiority…it will be difficult for people to live in respect for one another. There isn’t a very bright history of it, after all.
Well, you, apparently, are discussing discussing. I am discussing the ethics of racial science.
One that notices an obvious regress when they are typing it.
OK well this is where I differ from Tron-- I don’t think there is such a thing as genetic “inferiority” or “superiority”. That would imply an objective value of entire genetic makeups. The only comparisons can be made on a case by case basis.
To better understand ourselves and the world - SCIENCE!
Nature doesn’t care.
We have a responsbility with how we apply scientific truths. I hope for the best.
Dually noted.
Can you give me a link or two?
hahaha
Categories be damned!!
That is all there is in this dept.
Rousseau - (against)
Bacon (another) - (for) - particularly interesting
Freud - (ambivalent)
Neither do I. I initially said that there is genetic DIFFERENCES between the races; it was that other guy who was insisting on the ‘superior/inferior’ interpretation.
This is a good Halloween thread…
“They say on a brisk fall night, if you listen real close, you can still hear the ghosts of race war past whispering, “Stay away from scientific analysis, WE WARNED YOUUU!””
But thanks for the links, I’ll read them tomorrow. Off to bed for me.
I didn’t see the original thread so I’m not sure exactly what was being discussed, but In general I find race/sex/sexual preference differences very interesting from a nature vs nurture , cultural vs genetic evolutionary psychology standpoint. If your interest comes from a similar standpoint TronCat I highly recommend Matt Ridleys “Genome” there’s not a whole lot on race, but a lot on sex/sexual preference which could lead to racial insights as well.
As to what it’s useful for other than just being interesting I could see insights in this area helping in understanding brain function, linking traits to genetic differences to specific areas of the brain. Theres also the aspect of just understanding people, the book above goes into eugenics and IQ tests and some of the terrible uses of these studies contrasted with learning disabilities and the advances that have been made in understanding them and teaching to the disabled.
Becuase you are saying that people would just “do” science with no point in mind…who is going to do research and then shelf it? Results of science are the reason it is done. You are wanting to avoid the application of results (which is just asinine).
haha LOOK OUT!
So are you against the actual scientific study of this? Let’s say that it’s legit, and there is differences in the races (particularly in cognitive ability) - would you not want these findings published and popularized?
Didn’t Darwin “do” science and then literally ‘shelf it’ in his book? Did he have a motive in mind?
I gave you a valid application.