Are we defining race as just genetics, or are we talking about culture too? It is completely irrational to deteste someone due to their genetic stock. Culture on the other hand isn't limited to race, and would seemingly be the problem with the OP's fictional character.
Race is determined by genetics, not culture. Therefore we must be talking about genetics.Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
Are we defining race as just genetics, or are we talking about culture too? It is completely irrational to deteste someone due to their genetic stock. Culture on the other hand isn't limited to race, and would seemingly be the problem with the OP's fictional character.
Ok.Bertster7 wrote:
Race is determined by genetics, not culture. Therefore we must be talking about genetics.Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
Are we defining race as just genetics, or are we talking about culture too? It is completely irrational to deteste someone due to their genetic stock. Culture on the other hand isn't limited to race, and would seemingly be the problem with the OP's fictional character.
This makes no sense then. What is there to experience? What is there to judge if you're not assessing their behavior, which is influenced by culture?RicardoBlanco wrote:
... he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
Genetics dictate behaviour and therefore society and culture. It's obvious if you look at groups with similar genetic patterns, they tend to fall into things we call countries.Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
Ok.Bertster7 wrote:
Race is determined by genetics, not culture. Therefore we must be talking about genetics.Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
Are we defining race as just genetics, or are we talking about culture too? It is completely irrational to deteste someone due to their genetic stock. Culture on the other hand isn't limited to race, and would seemingly be the problem with the OP's fictional character.This makes no sense then. What is there to experience? What is there to judge if you're not assessing their behavior, which is influenced by culture?RicardoBlanco wrote:
... he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
The hypothetical question involves black people to keep it simple. Whether the people he's lived with are Black/Asian/Chinese etc is irrelevant.
That's not true.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Genetics dictate behaviour and therefore society and culture. It's obvious if you look at groups with similar genetic patterns, they tend to fall into things we call countries.Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
Ok.Bertster7 wrote:
Race is determined by genetics, not culture. Therefore we must be talking about genetics.This makes no sense then. What is there to experience? What is there to judge if you're not assessing their behavior, which is influenced by culture?RicardoBlanco wrote:
... he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
The hypothetical question involves black people to keep it simple. Whether the people he's lived with are Black/Asian/Chinese etc is irrelevant.
The level of genetic diversity that is prevalent throughout modern cosmopolitan societies makes your argument fairly redundant. Social factors have the greatest impact on behavioural characteristics and those are not influenced by race.
Are you trying to suggest that all people of the same race behave in the same way? That's quite clearly not true.
It is true.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Genetics dictate behaviour and therefore society and culture. It's obvious if you look at groups with similar genetic patterns, they tend to fall into things we call countries.Volatile_Squirrel wrote:
Ok.Bertster7 wrote:
Race is determined by genetics, not culture. Therefore we must be talking about genetics.
This makes no sense then. What is there to experience? What is there to judge if you're not assessing their behavior, which is influenced by culture?
The hypothetical question involves black people to keep it simple. Whether the people he's lived with are Black/Asian/Chinese etc is irrelevant.
The level of genetic diversity that is prevalent throughout modern cosmopolitan societies makes your argument fairly redundant. Social factors have the greatest impact on behavioural characteristics and those are not influenced by race.
Are you trying to suggest that all people of the same race behave in the same way? That's quite clearly not true.
The level of diversity you talk about is precisely why we have a word called racism; we generally just don't get on, hence a term for it. I'd argue the genetic differences between us have led to us creating countries, borders and patriotism precisely to keep us apart, limit confrontation and allow us to mingle with people of similar genetic heritage.
It is no coincidence that the world is the way it is today.
Um, no it isn't. As I pointed out social factors are by far the biggest factor in determining someones behavioural characteristics.RicardoBlanco wrote:
It is true.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not true.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Genetics dictate behaviour and therefore society and culture. It's obvious if you look at groups with similar genetic patterns, they tend to fall into things we call countries.
The hypothetical question involves black people to keep it simple. Whether the people he's lived with are Black/Asian/Chinese etc is irrelevant.
The level of genetic diversity that is prevalent throughout modern cosmopolitan societies makes your argument fairly redundant. Social factors have the greatest impact on behavioural characteristics and those are not influenced by race.
Are you trying to suggest that all people of the same race behave in the same way? That's quite clearly not true.
The level of diversity you talk about is precisely why we have a word called racism; we generally just don't get on, hence a term for it. I'd argue the genetic differences between us have led to us creating countries, borders and patriotism precisely to keep us apart, limit confrontation and allow us to mingle with people of similar genetic heritage.
It is no coincidence that the world is the way it is today.
So you are saying that all people of the same race all behave the same way?
If so, you are a racist. If not, your OP is inaccurate.
Ah, the age old question. I still say genetics.Bertster7 wrote:
Um, no it isn't. As I pointed out social factors are by far the biggest factor in determining someones behavioural characteristics.
So you are saying that all people of the same race all behave the same way?
If so, you are a racist. If not, your OP is inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
And please don't play the race card either, my 'OP' is not racist, it's a hypothesis and therefore can't really be inaccurate.
Ok, then the conclusions of the hypothesis are flawed.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Ah, the age old question. I still say genetics.Bertster7 wrote:
Um, no it isn't. As I pointed out social factors are by far the biggest factor in determining someones behavioural characteristics.
So you are saying that all people of the same race all behave the same way?
If so, you are a racist. If not, your OP is inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
And please don't play the race card either, my 'OP' is not racist, it's a hypothesis and therefore can't really be inaccurate.
You still haven't answered the most important question, which is quite simple. It's a yes or no question, there are two possible responses.
Do you believe that all people of the same race behave the same way?
Yes or No?
There is much in your link that shows that genetics and behaviour are not nearly closely linked enough for the man in your OP to not be considered to hold racist views.
Environmental variation. Meaning different individuals, even genetically identical ones, even genetically identical ones brought up in virtually identical environments, are not identical in personality and other traits.Within the debates surrounding cloning, for example, is the far-fetched contention that a Jesus or a Hitler could be "re-created" through genetic cloning. Current thinking finds this largely innaccurate, and discounts the possibility that the clone of anyone would grow up to be the same individual due to environmental variation. For example, like clones, identical twins are genetically identical, and unlike the hypothetical clones share the same family environment, yet they are not identical in personality and other traits.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-11 12:11:43)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
My opinion is not in question and I haven't drawn any conclusions.Bertster7 wrote:
Ok, then the conclusions of the hypothesis are flawed.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Ah, the age old question. I still say genetics.Bertster7 wrote:
Um, no it isn't. As I pointed out social factors are by far the biggest factor in determining someones behavioural characteristics.
So you are saying that all people of the same race all behave the same way?
If so, you are a racist. If not, your OP is inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
And please don't play the race card either, my 'OP' is not racist, it's a hypothesis and therefore can't really be inaccurate.
You still haven't answered the most important question, which is quite simple. It's a yes or no question, there are two possible responses.
Do you believe that all people of the same race behave the same way?
Yes or No?
I'm arguing against our right to make a value judgement on said man by calling him racist when he's the one with the fundamental experience to be drawing any conclusions at all. If you want to play the race card and insinuate, patronisingly, that I'm a racist then fine, you won't garner any credibility from me.
Genetics play a huge part in our behaviour and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect tension between groups of different genetic make-ups.
Actually you made your opinion abundantly clear here:RicardoBlanco wrote:
My opinion is not in question and I haven't drawn any conclusions.Bertster7 wrote:
Ok, then the conclusions of the hypothesis are flawed.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Ah, the age old question. I still say genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
And please don't play the race card either, my 'OP' is not racist, it's a hypothesis and therefore can't really be inaccurate.
You still haven't answered the most important question, which is quite simple. It's a yes or no question, there are two possible responses.
Do you believe that all people of the same race behave the same way?
Yes or No?
I'm arguing against our right to make a value judgement on said man by calling him racist when he's the one with the fundamental experience to be drawing any conclusions at all. If you want to play the race card and insinuate, patronisingly, that I'm a racist then fine, you won't garner any credibility from me.
Genetics play a huge part in our behaviour and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect tension between groups of different genetic make-ups.
You've shown that the type of view you are presenting in the OP, is the type of view held by you.RicardoBlanco wrote:
I was willing to give people the benefit of the doubt when I was younger but now I'm older and wiser I no longer rely on preconceptions to judge them but personal experience. That's why I think only young people can be racist, the older ones know the score.
If you can't see that judging someones potential behaviour based on race is prejudice (and since based on race, is racist), then you really need to reassess what it is that you think prejudice means.
Behavior is not genetically encoded into our genes. It is produced by culture.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Exactly.Kmarion wrote:
Behavior is not genetically encoded into our genes. It is produced by culture.
And would you say behaviour by all people of the same race is either identical or extremely similar?
Generally I would try to stay away from using behavior and all people in the same thought, similar or identical. Judge the indivdual.. etc..etcBertster7 wrote:
Exactly.Kmarion wrote:
Behavior is not genetically encoded into our genes. It is produced by culture.
And would you say behaviour by all people of the same race is either identical or extremely similar?
The sad thing is that there was a time in American history that we did try to associate genetics and behavior. Most Americans are not aware of this.
Eugenical Sterilization Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Int … ct_of_1924
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yeah, we also lobotomized people.Kmarion wrote:
Generally I would try to stay away from using behavior and all people in the same thought, similar or identical. Judge the indivdual.. etc..etcBertster7 wrote:
Exactly.Kmarion wrote:
Behavior is not genetically encoded into our genes. It is produced by culture.
And would you say behaviour by all people of the same race is either identical or extremely similar?
The sad thing is that there was a time in American history that we did try to associate genetics and behavior. Most Americans are not aware of this.
Eugenical Sterilization Law
as Tom Waits once saidKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yeah, we also lobotomized people.Kmarion wrote:
Generally I would try to stay away from using behavior and all people in the same thought, similar or identical. Judge the indivdual.. etc..etcBertster7 wrote:
Exactly.
And would you say behaviour by all people of the same race is either identical or extremely similar?
The sad thing is that there was a time in American history that we did try to associate genetics and behavior. Most Americans are not aware of this.
Eugenical Sterilization Law
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a Frontal lobotomy
Genetics do play a large part in behavior. But not the only part. Thus, different genetics from one individual to another (in the same race) diversify each race. making your hypothetical of said man to make a judgment on a particular race even more difficult. Again, to make a judgment on an entire race requires meeting each and every individual of that race. Or else, it is racism.RicardoBlanco wrote:
My opinion is not in question and I haven't drawn any conclusions.Bertster7 wrote:
Ok, then the conclusions of the hypothesis are flawed.RicardoBlanco wrote:
Ah, the age old question. I still say genetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
And please don't play the race card either, my 'OP' is not racist, it's a hypothesis and therefore can't really be inaccurate.
You still haven't answered the most important question, which is quite simple. It's a yes or no question, there are two possible responses.
Do you believe that all people of the same race behave the same way?
Yes or No?
I'm arguing against our right to make a value judgement on said man by calling him racist when he's the one with the fundamental experience to be drawing any conclusions at all. If you want to play the race card and insinuate, patronisingly, that I'm a racist then fine, you won't garner any credibility from me.
Genetics play a huge part in our behaviour and it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect tension between groups of different genetic make-ups.
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2007-05-11 13:11:08)
It's both, and according to the wiki article it's genetics which play a more important role later in life as the person develops. Precisely the scenario in my hypothesis.Bertster7 wrote:
Exactly.Kmarion wrote:
Behavior is not genetically encoded into our genes. It is produced by culture.
How can you not see that your 'hypothesis' is little more than the demented raving of either a lunatic or a racist?RicardoBlanco wrote:
It's both, and according to the wiki article it's genetics which play a more important role later in life as the person develops. Precisely the scenario in my hypothesis.Bertster7 wrote:
Exactly.Kmarion wrote:
Behavior is not genetically encoded into our genes. It is produced by culture.
I can't break it down to be any simpler. I find it quite incomprehensible that you can't see how ridiculous your argument is.
How can you not see the vast difference between a slight genetic influence, which is all modern science believes that it is, over behaviour and the behaviour of each person of the same race being identical, as it would have to be for your hypothesis to be valid.
You sir, are a muppet.
I'm done with this.
People are always going to hate people. No matter what.
Humans just find excuses and reasons. Classist crap such as the chav thing (I'm guilty of it...), racism, discrimination on basis of religion, patriotism and imperialistic values...
It is human nature.
Humans just find excuses and reasons. Classist crap such as the chav thing (I'm guilty of it...), racism, discrimination on basis of religion, patriotism and imperialistic values...
It is human nature.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Yes, because if he hates ALL black people, he's making assumptions about black people he's never met.RicardoBlanco wrote:
*Hypothetical Question*rac·ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
If a man has lived all his life amongst black people and still hates them can you logically call him a racist? Seeing as racism is based on prejudice, where would the prejudice lie in this mans opinion considering he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
Now, if he met every black person on the planet (and continued meeting the ones born every day), and he STILL hated ALL of them, then no, he's not a racist. Although, you could say he's really hateful and sick....