General

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

RiflesReady — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:00:16 GMT

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.

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

KarlHeinz — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:08:45 GMT

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

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

John Delano — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:19:29 GMT

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

JimS — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:31:46 GMT

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).

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

Torsten — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:53:02 GMT

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Btw.: the basis for grouping ethnicities together in Europe were mainly of a linguistical nature and actual not racial.

Can you come up with anything that is actually not a fallacy?

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

JimS — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:12:43 GMT

libertarian:
As long as anti-miscegenation laws are practical in preserving the intelligence of pure races.

These racists would usually define "pure" according to the criteria:
If a person passes an IQ test, then he is pure.
A "pure" person is as a person with four pure-looking grandparents of the same race.

It seems to me these two criteria combine to produce inbreeding based on looks . . . What a dumb idea; how in the world would the government be able to go back in time and give IQ test to the grandparents? If intelligence is truely the goal here, the racists should really ban themselves from breeding

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

JimS — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:07:33 GMT

libertarian:
Racists prefer a racially homogeneous society to avoid miscegenation. That's the only major objective that they want. Miscegenation creates "mongrels" which cannot be as smart as either of the parents.

Where is this claim coming from? If anything, in agriculture (where you can see the success vs. failure of breeding experiements more quickly than for humans), hybridization is a well-established method for avoiding genetic disease.

libertarian:
Intelligent people reproduce with other intelligent people within that association and create more intelligent people.

I guess, by that logic, only Jews and far east asians should be allowed to reproduce . . . what a proposterous idea!

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

JimS — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:55:35 GMT

Inquisitor:

The modern state is hardly favourably disposed towards the idea of race (except when it comes to affirmative action), so I am not sure how it fits in today. It is impossible to do dispassionate research on the matter precisely because it is so controversial.

You answered your own question half way through the first sentence. The modern state is very keen on the idea of "race"; affirmative action is only one of the latest tools for identity politics.

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

JimS — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:44:20 GMT

Torsten:
We should also differentiate between the following: people acknowledging differences between race groups, people that advocate policies refering to race and people that prefer/dislike certain races or their members.

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!"

What a laugh. There is no biological basis for "Race" as melanin level is a continuous spectrum for humanity. There is no biologically definable "Race" based on skin color just like there wasn't a biologically definable "British Race," "French Race," "German Race," "Italian Race," etc. etc.. "Race" was simply a device invented for identity politics. What's idenity politics, you ask? It's just a sort of mafia scheme for finding brotherhood between you and me so we can both go exploit someone else. That's why in the early use of "Race," the term meant supposed nationality and tribal affiliations; that's why you have "Germanic Race," "Slavic Race," etc. in the early days of Racism. 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.

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

Torsten — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:55:02 GMT

J.C. Hewitt:
Murray has a PhD in Political Science. I don't see why he is perceived as a biology expert.

But fortunately he can access the journals, works and other literature of biology experts. That's what these journals are therefore to make the knowledge generated by scientists in a certain field accessible to others.

We should also differentiate between the following: people acknowledging differences between race groups, people that advocate policies refering to race and people that prefer/dislike certain races or their members. Problem is that all these concepts are summarized under the umbrella term of "racism", which has become a slur word for politically incorrect ideas or those representing them. So the word itself is pretty useless as descriptive term for political debate.

Given my experience and thinking the issue through I'm in favor of that a nation should consist of people that are racially compatible with each other. I acknowledge their are diffences between race groups as well, but that doesn't mean that I waste my time on "hating" people, because they belong to another race. I btw. think that this is what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind as well.

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

J.C. Hewitt — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:14:16 GMT

I think your problem is that you are confusing the denial of racism with the denial of the existence of genetics.

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

J.C. Hewitt — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:04:04 GMT

The snark wasn't really directed at you.

It is not controversial. What is race, as defined by the state? It is based on what a person looks like. Ancestry has nothing to do with it. You can be "Black," yet have 50% ancestry coming from Western Europe, and the rest coming from Western Africa. You can still be "Black" and have 80% of your ancestry coming from East Africa, and the remaining 20% coming from South East Asia. Do you see the glaring problems associated with conflating socially defined categories with genetics?

Murray has a PhD in Political Science. I don't see why he is perceived as a biology expert.

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

Inquisitor — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:55:39 GMT

The modern state is hardly favourably disposed towards the idea of race (except when it comes to affirmative action), so I am not sure how it fits in today. It is impossible to do dispassionate research on the matter precisely because it is so controversial.

What you just mentioned is precisely what is controversial - that the only variation amongst human races is melanin levels. I am indifferent as to whether race exists or not, but denying biological differences amongst various subgroups seems completely mistaken. As for the "untermensch" comment, what was its point?

Re: Ron Paul the Racist?!?!

J.C. Hewitt — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:49:42 GMT

Race is a concept that is asserted to exist by the state. Why do you reject so many other naked lies of the state, but judge this one to be worthy of consideration?

Here's a good primer: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/HumanRaces/BiologyRace/BiologyRace.htm

And a concise academic paper. One of the authors is an untermensch, hopefully you can stomach it: http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/amp60116.pdf

This type of genetic divergence is nonexistent in the human species. To be classified as separate races, humans would need to possess this hybrid disability. The “races” of the human species are variable in degrees of melanin, which does not qualify them to be called as such.

Race is simply an arbitrary definition based on the melanin levels of your skin. It is not otherwise indicative of genetics. Any two people might disagree on the racial identity of a "mixed" person, which is a misnomer anyway because everyone is the product of millions of years of "mixing."