So the mere inquiry into the possibility is unethical. Illegal is a stretch, unless you can point at the actual law for me.
You're way off base with your notions. This is PC because your polticial beliefs are interfering with the hard science. This isn't experimenting on live humans where they end up dead, it's merely an inquiry into their present state. But as with all of your arguments, you end up attacking the messenger rather than the message. - Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: AYFKM? > No what I am saying is that that sort of experiment is illegal and > unethical. It has nothing to do with PC or whatever, it has everything to > do with seriously fucking up the lives of people for a theory that the > existant data has shown is incorrect. First you are tearing infants away > from their families. putting some of them in detrimental situations and > making sure that they do not live to their potential. That is unethical > and illegal. I suggest you look up the Tuskagee experiments - its exactly > the same attitude and approach. You may also want to look up what happened > to the lost children of Argentina, that's exactly what the junta did > during the dirty war there. From what you are saying you have no qualms > about doing such to minorities. That smacks of racism of the worst sort. > > From you're definitions it sounds like you can change them to suit any > purpose. Well gee there are no differences between these groups, so lets > change the definitions. Post hoc changing like that is not good science. > > Moreover, that is not the intent of operational definitions. It s to fix > what you ar etrying to do in such a way that another researcher can take > your procedures and replicate your results. > > As for the definitions, lets take skin tone. Anthropologist in the 60's > found two tribes in New Guinea that supported the idea of social > evolution. One tribe was very black, almost soot black, while the other > was almost albino. The researchers were able to trace back the two tribes > to a split several hundred years before when one group though that darker > skin was more attractive while the other prefered paler skin. The groups > separated, living in adjacent valleys but rarely interacted. Over the > generations the skin colour significantly changed. Now is the paler group > still one of your "black groups"? They have a very pale skin tone, whiter > than most so called whites. > > Speaking of which , by your definition are people descended from groups in > the Mediterranian region white or black? Even though on the average they > are considerably darker than most other Europeans, and many Ethiopians. Or > lets take the Caucasian racial grouping. Skin tone ranges from extremely > dark of the Tamil Nadu region around the southern tip of India to the very > pale nordic types of Scandinavia. Are Caucasians white or black? I could > go on. How does your definition of race by skin tone account for Asians, > from the darker Han or Ainu of Japan to the very pale urban Japanese. > > BTW what "known" differences are there? Aside from inconsequential ones, > like skin tone. > > >>So you're avoiding the question. Additionally, you're suggesting that it's >>a >>"crime against humanity" and unethical to propose a theory that there may >>be >>genetic differences with regards to intelligence between the races whether >>or not it may have a basis in fact (evolution). This is the very >>definition >>of political correctness, and a complete hypocrisy with regards to >>everything you've ever written about evolution. The difference between >>what >>you say and what Dana says is that she doesn't deny that it might be true, >>she just suggests that the definitions aren't clear enough to make an >>observed decision. >> >>And these studies... why must there be "so called races"? Why not a >>skin-tone/intelligence correlation? How about a foot-size/intelligence >>correlation? A skin-tone/penis size correlation? You can make up any >>sort >>of study in the world as long as you have the correct definitions. >> >>I'm not looking to vilify any race out there... just suggesting the >>eminently logical. There *are* known differences between races. There's >>no >>reason to suggest that genetic differences, whatever they might be, don't >>apply to intelligence some some way. >> >>- Matt >> >> >> >>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion is delivering applications solutions at at top companies around the world in government. Find out how and where now http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?event=finder&productID=1522&loc=en_us Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:245442 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
