LEGO,

Descriptive terms such as the ones you mention can still be useful in describing one's culture or place of origin or residence, or to a certain extent, appearance. But from a genetic point of view, they are near useless. Especially when one tries to ascribe intelligence personality traits to an entire people. That is completely unscientific. Take, for example, an assertion you made under your old nom de plume, that the only aboriginals who appeared to you to have any brains were those that had had a dose of white genes injected into them (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4490#43534). Geneticists have have found absolutely nothing in the human genome that would come close to supporting such a vile view and yet you hold it anyway.

As for genocide and affirmative action, they refer to any group of people (e.g. religious, cultural). So no, they wouldn't be meaningless. And the only reason those whom you accuse of gaining mileage from the concept of "race" need to mention anything close to it at all is because of ignorant, discredited old ideas about "races" such as yours! It has nothing to do with picking and choosing what's convenient at the time.

<<There may be 0.02% difference in genomes between humans, but there is about 2% difference between humans and chimpanzees, so a bit of difference is important.>>

Yes, but the gene expression of humans and chimps is very different so your comparison is radically inaccurate.

<<Would you be able to tell me the percentage of difference between a Pit Bull dog and a Labrador? It is probably less than 0.02% difference but I would prefer to let my kids play with a Labrador rather than a damned Pit Bull.>>

Actually, it's way more than that. Approximately 27% (however, the gene expression is still the same). Some peer reviewed articles on this topic can be found at https://www.princeton.edu/genomics/kruglyak/publication/PDF/2004_Parker_Genetic.pdf if you have university library access.

<<"Anti racists" do exactly what Hitler did by always blaming white people for the dysfunctions of blacks. Yes, that is racism.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Yeah, I already addressed this. Wording it differently isn't going to change anything. No-one claims that the responsibility of whites is an unavoidable genetic trait inherent to them. I suggest you look up the definition of "racism". Even if it were racist, though, it doesn't make your racist position any better. It just means you're apparently happy to be down there playing in the mud with them rather than rising above it all.

<<As for "marginalisation", that is just another "blame the white guy" argument. The theory goes, that because the uncaring white people don't give two hoots about blacks, then black dysfunction must therefore be the fault of whites. But the people who peddle this nonsense fail to mention that in the USA alone, between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse. Just which race is the more "uncaring" and the more racist?>>

No, criminologists recognise such statistics, they just realise that the causes are the same. Nice try on the "uncaring" bit though. Ten points for creativity.

<<As for "science", I first read the scientific works "A Mind to Crime" followed by "The Bell Curve". I followed them up by reading the "anti racist" book by Paul Breggin called "The War on Children" where he openly bragged about how he and the NAACP had successfully lobbied the US congress to withdraw funding from any geneticist who dared to suggest a genetic link between crime, race, and intelligence.>>

You know, it is actually possible to set out to research one idea and come back with result supporting another conclusion. So your funding conspiracy only goes so far. I would also be interested in why funding was withdrawn. Could it perhaps be because finding a link would provide us with no solutions to the problem of crime without inciting racial hatred?

As for your racist books, they've been thoroughly debunked, and if you really want to know why, then I'd suggest you read some peer reviewed scientific journals that look specifically at the authors' arguments.

Dear Mr Phillips, it can hardly be "genetically useless" to conclude that the very noticeable differences in the appearances of different races is due to different genetics. And if races differ through genetics in physical appearance and physical attributes, then it is a reasonable assumption to assume that they have differing mental attributes. Especially since some races are characteristically dysfunctional regardless of which culture they inhabit. "The Bell Curve" was serious scientific work that proved that different races have differing bell curves of intelligence. If all races were of equal intelligence, then it should be easy for any cognitive metrician win a Nobel Prize by proving what you say is true. But other than throwing brickbats at "the Bell Curve", no socially progressive liberal cognitive metrician is going to try that. Even though they still pretend that all races are equal for ideological reasons, they know that this is not so.

As for the "racist" book "A Mind to Crime", it is a serious scientific work in which the word "race" never appears even once in it's 560 pages, and which examines the clear causal link between crime and genetics. Imagine my surprise when the Australian Bureau of Criminology produced a white paper agreeing with all of its it's premises? (Trends and Issues No. 263) Are you suggesting that Australia's government criminologists are racists too?

I once debated a socially progressive woman with a law degree who handed out copies of the Green Left Weekly. She angrily denied that black crime was very disproportionately directed at whites. But to her credit, she checked her internet and came back ruefully admitting that it was true. That woman was smart because she had the emotional maturity to put aside her prejudices, turn on her objective reasoning circuits, and look for impartial facts on which to base a conclusion. Why don't you do the same thing? I don't ask you to believe anything I say, I ask you to look with an open mind. "May the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."

continued

continued

There is only one definition of "genocide" in the English language, although our UN friends are changing that by introducing six entirely new definitions that conform to their egalitarian social agenda. "Words mean exactly what I say they mean, nothing more, nothing less" (Through the Looking Glass)

And just as with the word "genocide", the word "racism" has been expanded by the "anti racist" lobby to mean anything they want. Originally it was meant to denote a particular doctrine. But civil rights progressives have extended it to mean racial prejudice, racial hostility, and racial discrimination. In 1965 the UN ruled that "racism" should also mean the propagation of racist doctrines, racial hostility, and racial discrimination. So on that UN definition, that "racism" means the propagation of racist doctrines, the propagation of a doctrine that white people are always responsible for the dysfunctions of trouble prone minorities, is conducive to creating racial hostility towards whites, and it is therefore racism according to the UN.

Now you are claiming that there is only 0.02% of genome difference between breeds of humans but 27% genome difference between breed of dogs. I will let our audience judge the merits of your extraordinary statistics. Thank you for giving me that one. It helps my side enormously when my opponents destroy their own credibility.

Now we get to the anti racist book "The War on Children". I bought the book because I really wanted to see how the anti racists would counter the clear scientific arguments linking race, intelligence and crime. I discovered that countering scientific argument was now what the author Breggin had in mind. With a vehemence worthy of Tom Cruise, he attacked the scientific disciples of Psychology, Psychiatry, the Cognitive Metrician's, even the medical profession, linking them all to Nazi Eugenicists. He bragged about how he used political muscle and economic sanction to shut the scientists up. Any ideology which attempts to shut up science is intellectually bankrupt

Yooooooo Hooooo!, Mr Phillips. Where arrrrrrrre Youuuuuuuu?

Damn.

That is the second time Mr Phillips have locked horns with me on racism, and the second time he has done the runner.

The second time, LEGO?

<<That is the second time Mr Phillips have locked horns with me on racism, and the second time he has done the runner.>>

When was the first?

Sorry, but I’ve been a little busy recently and this really bores me (no offense). Not everyone who stops responding is doing a “runner” (I love the double entendre there). You should know this (or perhaps not) having done a few yourself. Anyway, just for you…

From a genetic point-of-view, yes, race is of little to no significance. There is nothing to suggest that the genes that control physical appearance influence our personalities: we know enough about the human genome to know that it is highly unlikely that we'll find any link to race and intelligence/mentality.

Two factors help shape our mentality - nature and nurture - and the different combinations of the two have a multiplying effect on who we are as individuals. Physical appearances are only affected by our genes. Now, you can claim that nurture doesn't play a part in shaping our personalities, but you'd be in disagreement with every expert on the topic. The only thing in contention is the extent to which each of the two factors contributes to our personalities. Further to this, our brains are highly complex organs that function off of a delicate balance of chemicals that are subject to change over time and as a result of life circumstances.

As for certain races being characteristically dysfunctional regardless of which culture they inhabit, there are other contributing factors such as poverty, lack of resources, religion and lack of education - if it's the dysfunction of certain "races'" homelands that you're also referring to. The Western world hasn't always been the greatest either. While Western society was mired in the dark ages and burning witches, other "races" were creating the foundations for our understanding of medicine and astronomy.

The Bell Curve is not the serious scientific piece of work that it was posed to be. Here are just a few links explain the problems with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/the-bell-curve/
http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1997/01/the_bell_curve_flattened.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/debunk/dBell.htm

Continued…