Dear LEGO,

I am not particularly interested in the topic of racism, nor is it the original topic of this discussion, but I happen to be here checking whether there are replies to my earlier posts and I saw your comment about Negroes having higher rates of AIDS because they are not smart.

The following article refutes that, showing that the reason is in fact genetic:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/genetics/articles/2008/07/16/genetic-trait-boosts-aids-risks-in-blacks

BTW, I find your discussion with AJ Philips and Saltpetre futile: how is one ever to scientifically prove that X (racism in this case) is right or wrong? Right and wrong are a matter of values rather than of facts - and science, having no recourse to values, is necessarily mum on this issue.

AJ Philips, gene expression is different?
Duh, that's the whole point of racial recognition.

If human genetic expression didn't *vary*, there'd be no "races"!
Just as they vary (ever so slightly) in dog "breeds".

"That the genetic difference is tiny in comparison to the cultural differences that we observe."

Chicken-egg.

Does it occur to you that cultural differences *derive* from genetic ones?

Why did Negroids never establish as advanced a civilisation as Caucasoids or Mongoloids?

Perhaps their more primitive culture is a direct consequence of their genes/alleles?

They *couldn't* build an advanced civilisation, but now they must live in one, and have difficulty doing so.
That is not the fault of our civilisation.

"Already answered this here, here and here".

Anyone who keeps a record of every comment they and their opponents make can only be an "agent".
Goodnight, Agent Philips.

Saltpetre "Whites superior? Rubbish. We've just had greater opportunity"

Rubbish right back at ya.

Whites were the *last* "race" to appear, and the most successful of us (Northeastern Europeans) were the *last* to be "civilised".

We therefore had *less* opportunity than other "races".

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the link, and nicely put. However, by "right", I think LEGO means that racist assumptions about genetic links between intelligence and criminality are more scientifically valid than other explanations.

LEGO,

You're not even reading my posts, are you? Oh well, I hope some onlookers are at least getting a kick out of watching this.

Thank you for, once again, confirming my claims that you require the position of others in order to divert attention from yours...

<<I will not allow a debate where you can attack my freely stated position, but I can't do the same thing to you.>>

I'll let you in on a little trick the rest of the world uses:

1. If someone disagrees with your position, then it's safe to assume that their position on that particular point is that you are wrong, and that's all you need to know.

2. If they sound sceptical and request evidence for your claim, then it's safe to assume that they're either not sure of where they stand on the issue and are curious as to whether your claims stack up, or they disagree with you and they're exposing the fact that your claim is baseless, and that's all you need to know.

Their opinion on whether racism is "right" or "wrong", is irrelevant at best (because each individual point should be able to stand (or fall) on its own merit); or it contradicts their fundamental position on the "rightness", or not, of racism at worst (in which case it is still irrelevant for the reason mentioned above).

But you're only interested in using the above two assumptions until you get the premise you want. If you don't, then you bully and intimidate with your aggressive talk; accusing your opponent of foul play.

Your need to have your opponent be some sort of a caricature of anti-racism suggests that you don't have any confidence in your own beliefs, and need the beliefs of your opponents to be aligned in a way such that you do at least feel some confidence by rebutting them.

Continued...

...Continued

And all to divert attention from the fact that your entire position rests on flimsy circumstantial evidence and spurious relationships.

<<State your position on racism or crawl away.>>

Intimidating talk. I hope you feel big now.

I'm not sure what else to say. On the "rightness", or not, of racism? That would depend on your precise definition of it. You've provided one definition above that would render everyone a racist:

"...either racism is wrong because all races are equal (or don't even exist), or they are not equal, which is the position of us racists."
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283702)

Depending on what you mean by "equal", of course. Equal value? Equal ability? Equal appearance? Some of the above? All of the above? You never clarify this for me because, as with your definition of "racism", you like to keep these things vague to give yourself some wriggle room. Do please define what you mean by "racism" first.

Shockadelic,

I can't be bothered trying to explain it to you anymore.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long

<<Does it occur to you that cultural differences *derive* from genetic ones?>>

Do they? What is your evidence for this?

Environmental and social factors have been demonstrated to be far more influential. We have 150 years of research demonstrating the influence of environmental and social factors on cultures and societies, and nothing to suggest any genetic role, despite having even mapped out the human genome.

But as someone who has allegedly done their research, you should already know this.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to address my other post too.

Dear AJ

1. If somebody claims that they wish to debate any subject but they refuse to state their own position on that subject, it is because he/she does not want his/her own position examined.

2. If he/she consistently refuses to state their position despite endless requests for he/she to do so, in order to conduct a fair debate, it is because he knows his/her position is indefensible but he/she does not care about that. He/she is not interested in debating, they are only interested in heckling. Their intent is not to examine issues through debate, their intent is to stifle debate.

3. The reason they do not care if their position is indefensible and they wish to stifle any debate, is because they either have another agenda, or they know that their position is based entirely upon faith and their own moral beliefs, which they do not want questioned.

I would put you in the second category.

Dear Yuyutsu

Thank you for providing information that Africans may be different to everybody else in AIDs susceptibility. It is just another scientific theory based upon the fact that science knows that races are not equal.

AIDS infections are now approaching 50% in some areas of Africa, New Guinie and the Caribbean. Genetic susceptibility to AIDS nay be a part of the problem. Although it seems strange that since AIDS is an African disease, one would think that exposure to AIDS for millennia would make Africans more immune to the disease, than those who have never been exposed. Every serious pandemic of human pathogens that I know of has resulted in high mortalities among unexposed populations which are immune deficient.

Sounds like crap to me.

Amazing, LEGO. I go to the effort of asking you to define "racism" (you would also need to explain what you mean when you say "equality", too, come to think of it) so that I can answer your question (that I have demonstrated to be irrelevant) regarding the "rightness" of racism, and not only do you refuse to answer, but you then claim that I am the one trying to avoid giving an answer!

I didn't think you would answer my request for clarification. As with the creationists' use of the word "kind", you need to keep your definition of "racism" and your use of the term "equality" (and probably "right" - as in "racism is right" - too, now that I think about it) vague and open-ended to leave yourself with as much room as possible to duck and weave. If you never come to an agreement on these terms, then it becomes easier to make it appear as though your opponent has contradicted themselves.

Worse still was that (as I pointed out before) you didn't realise that a contradiction between one's finer point, and their view on racism's "rightness" or "wrongness", bears no relation to the accuracy of their finer point. Or perhaps you do realise this and just want to use the contradiction to divert attention from your arguments and make the debate about them instead. Given this recent ad hominem attack of yours, I'd say it's the latter. It's a rehearsed technique that you have down pat and when someone disrupts that, you stamp your feet and cry foul.

Yet despite all this, and despite the fact that I meticulously address every little detail of your posts, you have the audacity to claim that I am the one who is being evasive and is not interested genuine discussion. Why? Because you yourself are not interested in genuine discussion. You're only interested in 'winning' and making yourself appear smart and 'right' in front of the "readers" that you are so focused on and so often refer to.