• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should hereditarians and race realists be allowed to express their opinions?

SmartCat said:
A candid investigation of the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime and race, does not interfere with equal treatment under law. It does discredit arguments for affirmative action and racial reparations. Affirmative action and racial reparations themselves violate equal treatment under law.
Click to expand...

Believing that blacks are genetically more likely to be criminals certainly would interfere with their civil rights!

All you want to do is find justifications for your pre-existing racism.
 
SmartCat said:
Intelligence can be defined as the ability to learn complex skills quickly and to remember those skills for a long time. Those who have taught in multi racial public schools have learned that average intelligence varies between the races, although they may be afraid to state it publicly. The failure of Head Start and No Child Left Behind to close racial differences in average academic performance is impressive and public evidence for racial differences in average intelligence.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that poverty is the most important factor, and that blacks in America are more likely to be poor.
 
Ikari said:
So is the question "Should stupid racists be able to express their opinions"? I suppose if the stupid racists are doing nothing more than expressing their opinions, then sure.
Click to expand...

As long as no one is stupid enough to believe them.
 
SmartCat said:
I have been reluctant to advocate the policy changes I believe are suggested by race realism and hereditarianism, but I will suggest several.

I think it would be unwise to try to repeal the civil rights legislation that was passed during the 1960's, although after supporting it at the time I have become disappointed with the black response. I do think the civil rights legislation should be interpreted in ways that prohibit forced school busing, affirmative action, and race reparations. Race is an area whee I agree with the Republican Party. I favor a color blind system of justice that does not make excuses for blacks. Because blacks have a higher crime rate than whites I think it is appropriate that a disproportionate number of blacks be put into prison. I am also in favor of race profiling. Because blacks in public schools are more likely to be disruptive than whites and Orientals I think a higher percentage of them should be disciplined, even permanently expelled.

I would like to replace Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) with free abortion on demand. No one would be forced to have abortions. They would be denied tax payer assistance to raise children who, statistically speaking, are unlikely to make valuable contributions to American society. I would like to pay people to be sterilized. Again, no one would be forced to be sterilized.

What I advocate I call "soft eugenics." No one would be forced to have abortions. No one would be forced to be sterilized. No one would be killed. Nevertheless, what I advocate would reduce the birth rate of those who for genetic reasons lack characteristics people in a society need to have to create and maintain a successful civilization. These are intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy.
Click to expand...

Why soft?
 
Good4Nothin said:
As long as no one is stupid enough to believe them.
Click to expand...

Well there are people who believe that the world is flat, so there's never a guarantee of that.
 
SmartCat said:
Not yet, perhaps. I am confident that in the foreseeable future it will be possible to do a DNA test on a new born baby, or even a fetus, that will predict future intelligence and criminal behavior within a high degree of probability.
Click to expand...

You predict this. And your predictions are worth what? They are based on what? Nothing, they are based on nothing, and they are worth absolutely nothing.
 
Napoleon said:
I don’t believe that [predicting future intelligence, criminal behavior] will ever be true. We could reach a point where we might be able to predict potential, but whether or not a person ever realizes that potential is going to be dictated by environmental factors.
Click to expand...

No, there is no reason whatsoever to think geneticists will be able to predict intelligence or criminal behavior. None.
 
Good4Nothin said:
You are forgetting that poverty is the most important factor, and that blacks in America are more likely to be poor.
Click to expand...

Poverty has nothing to do with it.The people in the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky and Tennessee are dirt poor and they don't run around killing and raping.Back during the Depression in the 1930's people didn't kill and rape and carry on.They helped one another.
 
SmartCat said:
I think it would be unwise to try to repeal the civil rights legislation that was passed during the 1960's, although after supporting it at the time I have become disappointed with the black response. I do think the civil rights legislation should be interpreted in ways that prohibit forced school busing, affirmative action, and race reparations. Race is an area whee I agree with the Republican Party. I favor a color blind system of justice that does not make excuses for blacks. Because blacks have a higher crime rate than whites I think it is appropriate that a disproportionate number of blacks be put into prison. I am also in favor of race profiling. Because blacks in public schools are more likely to be disruptive than whites and Orientals I think a higher percentage of them should be disciplined, even permanently expelled.
Click to expand...
As I see it, you're speaking against race-based policy here.

SmartCat said:
I would like to replace Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) with free abortion on demand. No one would be forced to have abortions. They would be denied tax payer assistance to raise children who, statistically speaking, are unlikely to make valuable contributions to American society. I would like to pay people to be sterilized. Again, no one would be forced to be sterilized.
Click to expand...
Write it up as a whitepaper, give it a title like "Motivating Fertility Self-Management for Sustainable Social Development", and it'll net you a free flight to wherever the next UN climate summit is being held.

SmartCat said:
What I advocate I call "soft eugenics." No one would be forced to have abortions. No one would be forced to be sterilized. No one would be killed. Nevertheless, what I advocate would reduce the birth rate of those who for genetic reasons lack characteristics people in a society need to have to create and maintain a successful civilization. These are intelligence, obedience to the law, and monogamy.
Click to expand...
What constitutes a successful civilization in your mind? One with relatively high intelligence, lawfulness, and monogamy?

For eugenics to have the slightest chance of succeeding in this goal, intelligence, lawfulness, and monogamy would have to be strongly heritable traits. Considering we have a hell of a time even quantifying intelligence, and that social, cultural, and environmental factors dwarf the impact of genetic variance, I just can't see it working.
 
gulfman said:
Poverty has nothing to do with it.The people in the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky and Tennessee are dirt poor and they don't run around killing and raping.Back during the Depression in the 1930's people didn't kill and rape and carry on.They helped one another.
Click to expand...

Yeah they just smoke meth and inbreed
 
SmartCat said:
Hereditarianism is the belief that genes, or more specifically gene alleles, are more important than anything else in determining ability - most importantly intelligence - and behavior - most importantly criminal behavior - than any other factor.

Race realism is the belief that race is an important biological classification for humans - similar to sub species among other animals - that the races differ significantly in average intelligence, criminal and sexual behavior, and that these differences are the result of evolving in response to different population pressures for thousands of years.

Hereditarianism and race realism are often considered to be racist, and for that reason unworthy of discussion, and meriting censorship.

I will begin this discussion by stating that I believe in hereditarianism and race realism. I believe that these have legitimate policy implications, and that policies that are based on assumptions about the human species that are incorrect are likely to have harmful results.

It is clear to me that agriculture and civilization have different population pressures than hunting and gathering, and that races that have practiced agriculture and civilization the longest are better suited to create and maintain successful civilizations than races that have been, comparatively speaking, more recently introduced.

I am defining a civilization as a city based society where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. I believe that during most of history civilizations have selected biologically for intelligence, and against criminal behavior, while tribal societies have selected biologically for characteristics that are often disruptive for civilizations.
Click to expand...

Every person should have the right to express their opinion.
 
Good4Nothin said:
No, there is no reason whatsoever to think geneticists will be able to predict intelligence or criminal behavior. None.
Click to expand...

Its unwise to approach science with the attitude that it will never be able to do something. The so-called “warrior gene” is known to result in a higher probability of aggression in response to stress or provocation. It could theoretically be used to predict who would be pre-disposed to violent crime. We don’t even have a consensus on what intelligence is let alone what drives it...yet.
 
Napoleon said:
Its unwise to approach science with the attitude that it will never be able to do something. The so-called “warrior gene” is known to result in a higher probability of aggression in response to stress or provocation. It could theoretically be used to predict who would be pre-disposed to violent crime.
Click to expand...

Or those who would make good seal team members.....given the right environment
 
I am going to go with the people who are best at making music should be in charge of making civilization.
 
Napoleon said:
Its unwise to approach science with the attitude that it will never be able to do something. The so-called “warrior gene” is known to result in a higher probability of aggression in response to stress or provocation. It could theoretically be used to predict who would be pre-disposed to violent crime. We don’t even have a consensus on what intelligence is let alone what drives it...yet.
Click to expand...

Predictions about genetics and brain science are usually over-confident and almost completely wrong. We don't know what intelligence is, or how it's related to DNA, or to the brain. The obstacles to these understandings are enormous. The public trusts the scientific experts, and the scientific experts exaggerate their knowledge and abilities.

Maybe you think it's unwise, but I have been saying this kind of thing for decades, and have always been right. They should have been creating artificial brains by now, according to their predictions. But they still don't know how the brain works. They have mapped all the DNA and still don't know what most of it does.
 
COTO said:
What constitutes a successful civilization in your mind? One with relatively high intelligence, lawfulness, and monogamy?
Click to expand...

A successful civilization has a high standard of living, a low crime rate, and a well functioning government. The government does not have to be democratic, but I prefer democracy. I define a civilization as a city based society where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

As successful civilizations I would list Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. European countries also fit this description, but I think they are endangering their futures by allowing the immigration of races characterized by crime, low intelligence, and terrorism. Countries in the Far East have the good sense to keep those people out.

Needless to say, I do not see diversity as a source of strength, but of social discord. A company like Microsoft benefits by hiring the best computer professionals in the world. Nevertheless, I see no benefit in lowering standards for blacks and Hispanics in order to achieve a work force that "looks like America."

Because of the high crime rate in the United States, the political polarization, and the inability of the government to deal with serious problems, I do not list the United States among successful civilizations, although the United States used to be.

I believe that centuries from now historians will attribute the decline and fall of the West to multi racialism, and the delusion that "Race is only a social construct." As the sun sets on the West it rises on the East. I expect China to achieve world hegemony by the end of this century, if not sooner. I hope that by the time China dominates the world it will have adopted a democratic government. I hope China is not tempted to hasten its ascendancy by military aggression. I hope the United States is not tempted to slow the ascendancy of China by military aggression.
 
Last edited:
Should hereditarians and race realists be allowed to express their opinions?
Click to expand...

Unless the 1st Amendment has just been repealed, then yes.
 
SmartCat said:
A successful civilization has a high standard of living, a low crime rate, and a well functioning government. The government does not have to be democratic, but I prefer democracy. I define a civilization as a city based society where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

As successful civilizations I would list Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. European countries also fit this description, but I think they are endangering their futures by allowing the immigration of races characterized by crime, low intelligence, and terrorism. Countries in the Far East have the good sense to keep those people out.

Because of the high crime rate in the United States, the political polarization, and the inability of the government to deal with serious problems, I do not list the United States among successful civilizations, although the United States used to be.
Click to expand...

Proof that malignant racism has not yet died out. HOW do you explain the advanced Muslim and African civilizations that existed when people in what is now Europe were raiding nomads?
 
SmartCat said:
.... I think they are endangering their futures by allowing the immigration of races characterized by crime, low intelligence, and terrorism. Countries in the Far East have the good sense to keep those people out.
Click to expand...

Races characterized by crime, low intelligence, and terrorism? Hoookay.... So homo sapiens, then? I've got news for you, SmartCat... we're all the same race. Same species, originating in the same place. The only real distinctions we have are cultural.
 
OP has the right to express his racist ass nonsense.

I have the right to laugh in his bigoted, stupid ****ing face.
 
COTO said:
For eugenics to have the slightest chance of succeeding in this goal, intelligence, lawfulness, and monogamy would have to be strongly heritable traits. Considering we have a hell of a time even quantifying intelligence, and that social, cultural, and environmental factors dwarf the impact of genetic variance, I just can't see it working.
Click to expand...

The number of illegitimate children raised by single mothers on welfare who amount to anything other than a few athletes and entertainers is vanishingly small.
 
SmartCat said:
The number of illegitimate children raised by single mothers on welfare who amount to anything other than a few athletes and entertainers is vanishingly small.
Click to expand...

...which further proves that genetics is the smaller factor.
 
gulfman said:
Poverty has nothing to do with it.The people in the hills of West Virginia and Kentucky and Tennessee are dirt poor and they don't run around killing and raping.Back during the Depression in the 1930's people didn't kill and rape and carry on.They helped one another.
Click to expand...

Applacia is a red-neck ghetto.
Thinking about the future here and its bleak prospects is not much fun at all, so instead you have the pills and the dope, the morning beers, the endless scratch-off lotto cards, healing meetings up on the hill, the federally funded ritual of trading cases of food-stamp Pepsi for packs of Kentucky's Best cigarettes and good old hard currency, tall piles of gas-station nachos, the occasional blast of meth, Narcotics Anonymous meetings, petty crime, the draw, the recreational making and surgical unmaking of teenaged mothers, and death: Life expectancies are short — the typical man here dies well over a decade earlier than does a man in Fairfax County, Va. — and they are getting shorter, women's life expectancy having declined by nearly 1.1 percent from 1987 to 2007.

If the people here weren't 98.5 percent white, we'd call it a reservation.
Click to expand...
 
Bum said:
Unless the 1st Amendment has just been repealed, then yes.
Click to expand...

And they are perfectly likely to be appropriately laughed at or sneered at. This whole thread is based upon a deliberate fallacy. First, the assertion that race and heredity are necessarily correlative. It ignores the vast wealth of scientific data that contradicts the postulates to pursue a narrow, unscientific premise. I'm not at all sure it isn't just a troll thread, the veneer of "science" and "thought" being so incredibly thin; its "heritage" in eugenics so apparent.

I will, however, give it the consideration it deserves, which is little. Asking the question itself is not inappropriate, but the suppositions upon which it is based have been so thoroughly debunked as to not be considered serious. Because of that, I'll not be citing the vast catalogue of contradictory studies, and leave that to others, if they care.

The postulate begins and ends with the idea that heredity is immutable, which is, of course, ridiculous. Were that so, smart people (or cats) would never have deficient children, and all mental (and other hereditary) defects would only yield idiot/defective children. Genetics and basic empirical knowledge refutes that most thoroughly. Nor does it gain credibility by extrapolating individual hereditary chains to societies, civilizations or races. Humans adapt to their conditions. It is the genius of our species in particular. That applies to hunting, farming, urban and rural conditions. Environmental factors are infinitely more predictive (as has been pointed out) than "breeding". A child who is malnourished is more likely to falter than one who is well-nourished. Exposure to academics also has greater influence. Economic circumstances yield far higher correlations. Genius exists in all civilizations. Consider mathematics, language and chemistry. Who invented our alphabet, mathematical concepts, gunpowder? The statement of the premise ultimately demonstrates its vacuity.
 
NWRatCon said:
And they are perfectly likely to be appropriately laughed at or sneered at. This whole thread is based upon a deliberate fallacy. First, the assertion that race and heredity are necessarily correlative. It ignores the vast wealth of scientific data that contradicts the postulates to pursue a narrow, unscientific premise. I'm not at all sure it isn't just a troll thread, the veneer of "science" and "thought" being so incredibly thin; its "heritage" in eugenics so apparent.

I will, however, give it the consideration it deserves, which is little. Asking the question itself is not inappropriate, but the suppositions upon which it is based have been so thoroughly debunked as to not be considered serious. Because of that, I'll not be citing the vast catalogue of contradictory studies, and leave that to others, if they care.

The postulate begins and ends with the idea that heredity is immutable, which is, of course, ridiculous. Were that so, smart people (or cats) would never have deficient children, and all mental (and other hereditary) defects would only yield idiot/defective children. Genetics and basic empirical knowledge refutes that most thoroughly. Nor does it gain credibility by extrapolating individual hereditary chains to societies, civilizations or races. Humans adapt to their conditions. It is the genius of our species in particular. That applies to hunting, farming, urban and rural conditions. Environmental factors are infinitely more predictive (as has been pointed out) than "breeding". A child who is malnourished is more likely to falter than one who is well-nourished. Exposure to academics also has greater influence. Economic circumstances yield far higher correlations. Genius exists in all civilizations. Consider mathematics, language and chemistry. Who invented our alphabet, mathematical concepts, gunpowder? The statement of the premise ultimately demonstrates its vacuity.
Click to expand...

I really dont care about the underlying premise of the question itself....I simply support the 1st Amendment; people are free to spew whatever silliness or whatnot to thier hearts content unless they are advocating for violence.

If you are not advocating violence, then I dont care if you want to claim you are the virgin born meatball child of the flying spaghetti monster and you are superior to all other forms of life.

Not hurting anyone? Then do or say whatever blows your hair back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom