JimS: It's a bit like saying: "steretypes are true, but I do not have prejudice against Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, etc. etc, but, but, but, all the stereotypes about them are TRUE!"
JimS: What a laugh. There is no biological basis for "Race" as melanin level is a continuous spectrum for humanity.... "Race" was simply a device invented for identity politics.
JimS: Because back then, state borders did not neatly co-incide with ethnic borders. The object of Racism was to make a lot of Irrendentist claims. What followed in Europe was massive "ethnic cleansings" between Germans vs. Slavics, and Germans vs. French. "Race" is simply a tool for those kind of identity politics.
Can you come up with anything that is actually not a fallacy?
Torsten:You mean stereotypes are true. Could you clarify what you are actually trying to say? I basically think that you are trying to obfuscate my points, a pattern you repeat within your text. Most stereotypes are kind of folklore like forecasting the weather from the kind of clouds one can see. That it exists in folklore doesn't mean that there is no sound basis for meteorology.
You are dreaming if you think stereotypes about ethnic groups have as much predictive power as cloud pattern in relation to weather.
Torsten:What you are writing here sounds a bit like the "race is a social construct" line of argument. Implying that if it is a social construct, it must be meaningless. The melanin-argument is a fallacy as well. What it is actually saying is that there are no original/ideal types, because there are infinite intermediate types. Here is an equivalent argument. There is no chemical basis for classifying coal (or other minerals), because the carbon levels are a continuous spectrum for all coal found on the earth. Try to get away with this, when dealing with coal (or other minerals) and see, if somebody will purchase from you ever again.
Coal price is heavily influenced by the location of production, with the assumption that the chemical make-up of each mine is relatively homogeneous. When such homogeneity can not be reasonably sure, industrial minerals and chemicals are spec'd on its chemical makeup. So, are you a 0.01%-melanin surface area human or a 0.02%-melanin surface area human?
Torsten:Moralistic Fallacy. Meaning something must be factually wrong, because it allegedly had bad consequences.How is the following for a similar argument: Those guys drawing up the borders were actually not "racist" enough, hence they made many mistakes leading to that kind of conflict. This was morally wrong, so we must all become "racists" now.
Is that the exact argument the various irredentist claims were based on? that the borders were not "racist" enough, and had to be updated to reflect "racial" boundaries? Check for yourself the consequences.
Btw.: the basis for grouping ethnicities together in Europe were mainly of a linguistical nature and actual not racial.
Read 19th century writings for yourself, the word "race" was used in context like "the British race," the "French race," "the German race." Like I said before, the concept "race" is a very fungible one, denoting a vision of various groups in competition (hence "race"); the dividing lines can be anything, skin color, language, religion, or even height/body-type (Tutsi vs. Hutu).
Byzantine:Jews and various Asian subgroups trend towards the right of the bell curve in IQ because of interbreeding within their racial group for traits their culture deems desirable.
The following paper shows how the recent history of the Ashkenazim may have contributed to their high intelligence relative to other population groups. It suggests that the downside of adaptive changes leading to higher intelligence are recessive diseases such as Tay-Sachs.
http://class.csuhayward.edu/faculty/gmiller/3710/DNA_PDFS/mt&yDNA/Cochran2005.pdf
Ron Paul a racist? That dog don't hunt. If he were a statist, then I think a charge of racism would be worthy of investigation, but not immediate, summary execution. As a Libertarian, it would be against his principles to violate the non-aggression axiom or to use government as his proxy to that end.
That's the crux of it. Is it wrong to hold to beliefs that are repugnant? Or is it wrong to aggress against or coerce others because of those beliefs? Really, the beliefs don't matter if you vioalte another person's rights; and hate crime laws have only validated that confounded idea, making it so that if x type of person hurts you, it's worse than if y type of person hurt you in the same way.
It's par for the course. I've been accused of hating the poor because I see the abolition, or at least crippling, of the state as a good thing.