the church in Africa

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by jay santos

DNA? Come on, you're not a racist are you?

Did I say anything about DNA?

I didn't make any claim about any dna being better than any other DNA..Just that its possible that west african dna could be in their dna and that it could have some effect...

Yes i realize you were joking

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No subject brings the kooks and crack pots out of the woodwork like this one. How better to show that you, grapevine and Indy are peas in a pod? You think you're so smart and enlightened go to Harvard square and preach your world view and see how long it takes before they ostracise you like a plague carrier. Solon and I and MRD are the ones who have mainstream thought on our side. Racists have always had reams of "data" and associated goof ball conclusions to support their positions.

Later when you calm down. Really think about this. I'm not in the back woods. My ideas on this are progressive and revolutionary.

Phase I: Americans believe ignorant stereotypes about races, many seem to have root in empirical data but the conclusions are blatantly malicious and incorrect

Phase II: Acknowledging that the original conclusions were malicious and/or incorrect, we shut up discussion about the empirical observations or we stretch to make politically correct conclusions that don't make logical sense. We stamp out "racists" everywhere that come back to the empirical observations, even making the observation itself racist.

Phase III: We admit that because of cultural and perspective differences and scientific inadaquacy we don't understand each other perfect and we don't understand why we're different. We're going to ignore those previous conclusions but not ignore the empirical differences. We do acknowledge and celebrate the differences. We also know that by doing so, we might regularly and unintentionally offend, but we will use those instances to improve our communication and understanding.

I'm in Phase III. A lot of racists are still in Phase I. You're in Phase II.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

On the contrary, anyone who talks about race in the mainstream is likely to get his/her book published or tenure.

Admitting you're a racist, however, is sure to bring ostracism. Justifiably so.

In fairness to Jay, with whom I often do not agree and disagreed in the linked thread, one could read what he is saying as an admission that culturally we all have racist tendencies, subconscious racist leanings and that by failing to admit these tendencies we are doomed to fall prey to them. That shouldn't get one ostracized.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I didn't make any claim about any dna being better than any other DNA..Just that its possible that west african dna could be in their dna and that it could have some effect...

Yes i realize you were joking

Those of accusing me of racism (by their definition) in this thread are out to lunch, and should note that I never once made a claim that athletic superiority was due to DNA.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Below is a list of the 20 players with the most appearances for Brazil

Wow. Your ability to come up with soccer statistics is disconcerting. I feel like I don't even know you anymore.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'm in Phase III. A lot of racists are still in Phase I. You're in Phase II.

Sounds like a new development in Del Boca Vista. Are they building the pool in phase VII?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Wow. Your ability to come up with soccer statistics is disconcerting. I feel like I don't even know you anymore.

He also has his nails done, gets his legs waxed and consults his hairdresser for marital advice.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Solon

Wow. Your ability to come up with soccer statistics is disconcerting. I feel like I don't even know you anymore.

Wikipedia.... my friend..

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Later when you calm down. Really think about this. I'm not in the back woods. My ideas on this are progressive and revolutionary.

Phase I: Americans believe ignorant stereotypes about races, many seem to have root in empirical data but the conclusions are blatantly malicious and incorrect

Phase II: Acknowledging that the original conclusions were malicious and/or incorrect, we shut up discussion about the empirical observations or we stretch to make politically correct conclusions that don't make logical sense. We stamp out "racists" everywhere that come back to the empirical observations, even making the observation itself racist.

Phase III: We admit that because of cultural and perspective differences and scientific inadaquacy we don't understand each other perfect and we don't understand why we're different. We're going to ignore those previous conclusions but not ignore the empirical differences. We do acknowledge and celebrate the differences. We also know that by doing so, we might regularly and unintentionally offend, but we will use those instances to improve our communication and understanding.

I'm in Phase III. A lot of racists are still in Phase I. You're in Phase II.

People have tried for a long time to make generalizations based on supposed empiricism purportedly suggesting race-based proclivities. Needless to say, there are powerful motivations to make such cases. As we see from the Juan Williams article linked in the previous thread, this folly has not been limited to whites. So the lack of any enduring credible conclusion is not for want of trying.

Part of the problem is that the "data" is a moving target, precisely because environmental including cultural influences are of such overwhelming importance. In the first century the Roman scholar Tacitus visited the Northern European tribes and recorded some famous impressions. While observing that they seemed somewhat dim witted and incapable of literacy, and prone to alcoholism and sloth, he marveled at their "race" for its brawn, fearlessness in battle, hunting prowess, hardiness, and the strength of character of their women, who ruled the roost.

"Guns Germs and Steel" is probably the best book ever written for a popular audience on this subject, in my opinion. Jared Diamond discusses Northern Europeans' cultural backwardness and reputation for physical prowess during most of recorded history and then brilliantly develops the (changing) environmental factors that explain differences among peoples.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

People have tried for a long time to make generalizations based on supposed empiricism purportedly suggesting race-based proclivities. Needless to say, there are powerful motivations to make such cases. As we see from the Juan Williams article linked in the previous thread, this folly has not been limited to whites. So the lack of any enduring credible conclusion is not for want of trying.

Part of the problem is that the "data" is a moving target, precisely because environmental including cultural influences are of such overwhelming importance. In the first century the Roman scholar Tacitus visited the Northern European tribes and recorded some famous impressions. While observing that they seemed somewhat dim witted and incapable of literacy, and prone to alcoholism and sloth, he marveled at their "race" for its brawn, fearlessness in battle, hunting prowess, hardiness, and the strength of character of their women, who ruled the roost.

"Guns Germs and Steel" is probably the best book ever written for a popular audience on this subject, in my opinion. Jared Diamond discusses Northern Europeans' cultural backwardness and reputation for physical prowess during most of recorded history and then brilliantly develops the (changing) environmental factors that explain differences among peoples.

You're still arguing with me as if I'm in Phase I of my descriptions from earlier. I'm not nor have I ever made any conclusions based on race from my empirical observations.

I fully understand the moving target concept, and that is yet another reason I'm not prone to make conclusions.

But to ignore the empirical data just out of fear, and to cry "racism" at anyone who does is whimpy.

What I don't get is why you're dodging all my challenges for you to point out where I state something racist (by your definition), but continuing to crack on me as though I have.