[yomomalomo]

Something that should be made clear to the number of racist folk on here is that firstly, loads of people who took part in the opening ceremony volunteered and secondly that 30% of London is non-white. So complaining about there being too many "coloured" children or dancers or whatever is just stupid.

Part of what I believe was so lovely about the opening ceremony is that we were not afraid to truly show our society at large. There were many people from less fortunate backgrounds taking part and there was the children's choir who were deaf as well. Maybe the proportion of deaf people in the opening ceremony was disproportional but nobody is complaining about that!

Why people complain about multiculturalism, I don't know. I suspect many of them are cultural superior "ists". The truth is, that of course in and amongst the many cultures in the UK, there are some issues and problems but there are also many benefits too! Indigenous British culture (if there is one precisely), has its many flaws and potholes, rather than discriminating against other people's cultures we should look to the positives of them and come together to improve our lives as a whole.

Lets take two cultural aspects of the two of the largest cultures in the UK, Indian sub continent culture and indigenous British.

In the case of the treatment of women, generally British culture might claim to be superior. The fact that we don't do honour killings, don't believe we are women's keepers any more and that we allow them greater freedoms are all things which could be said.

However, progressively, our treatment of the elderly has become worse. Youths of today scare elderly people, swear at them, rob, and sometimes attack them. Respect for elderly persons is something deeply ingrained in Asian culture and due to the general closeness of the community, the ill treatment of the elderly rarely happens. I know if I were an elderly man and I had to choose between walking down a Pakistani "ghetto" or a white one late at night, I would most surely pick the former.

If, rather than being segregated, these two cultures mixed more often, then being either a women or an elderly person, I would enjoy a much better existence.

[wenger16]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I'd rather have a Jewish lawyer if you're interested. So no, I am not racist. If race just comes down to melanin then explain to me how if we found any 1 cm cube of a person, from their head to their toes, we'd be able to find out their race?

Thats not true show me the evidence.

Why do you care if uk was not represented properly in the opening ceremony they were volunteers???

Come to cities like London, Bradford, Birmingham and Leicester, Wolverhampton and you'll see that white people are often not the majority it becomes a 50:50 i suppose you want those cities destroyed?

You are a racist all you care when you see people is the colour of their skin it wouldn't matter what their skills are, personality is.

ALL YOU SEE WHEN YOU MEET OR SEE A PERSON ON TV IS THEIR SKIN COLOUR AND YOUR BRAIN PROCESSES THIS INFO AND WILL THROW INTO ACTION THE RACIAL STEREOTYPES YOU HOLD RELATING TO SKIN COLUR!!!!!!!!!!!!

You chose jewish but that wasn't one of the options so never the blacks or asians only skin colour matters does it???????

[wenger16]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Epic fail. Race isn't just skin colour dummy.

''The question arises, why so many people say or imply that the races differ only in skin colour when this is so obviously untrue. Those who minimise racial differences by speaking as though the only difference between a European and (for instance) a Chinese were of skin colour, appear unwittingly to admit that recognition of the more fundamental differences that actually exist might affect people’s views on the ethnic problem; for it might be regarded as unlikely that such differences could co-exist with exact similarity in the parts of the body concerned with thought and feeling.'' (Baker, 1974)

Couldn't be bothered to read what you wrote boringggg

The person is discriminating on basis of skin colour therefore he is a racist. fact.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Me too. I think you're talking about the one on Channel 4 where they spent the first half of the show denying that IQ existed, and the second half of the show trying to claim that were it not for xyz blacks would have equal IQs. It was quite clear which side their bread was buttered on. Once the genetic code of intelligence is cracked you really will be up **** creek without a paddle defending this position though you know. If it's an engrained culture of being anti-intellectual that's a problem that is potentially even harder to fix than genetics.

The majority of arguments to date point away from any genetic reasons for why the average IQ for "blacks" is lower/. So I can be forgiven for getting defensive when someone says "once the genetic code is cracked you really will be up ****s creek" as if it were a foregone conclusion. The same can be said for those that claim genetics have a massive part to play 100m sprint dominance of black athletes. It's an old and outdated argument that many people use as a clause to justify their prejudice against "blacks". Not that I'm saying that's the type of person you are.

[milkytea]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
Subspecies (races) are a biological reality. They are also not limited to Homo Sapiens. For example many different races of plants exist.

The total hypocrisy of the politically motivated ''race denier'' trolls is that they claim Human races don't exist, but how many are online forums claiming different plants don't?



- Ernst Mayr (world leading evolutionary biologist) in 2002

Racial denial is not scientific, it is motivated by political correctness:



- George W. Gill (world leading expert in forensic anthropology) in 2000

I probably should have made it clearer that I have no doubt that race exists, in that there exists a certain amount of physiological diversity in the human species. However, I maintain that these minor physiological differences are not socially or politically significant.

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
There are actually several 'race and IQ' threads on this forum you can debate this in detail. I can point out here though that you are incorrect. Adverse environmental conditions only raise the Negroid ('Black') IQ 13 - 15 points (Lynn, 2006). So for example when White Europeans adopt a Black child, that child only raises its IQ 13 - 15 points, still far below the average White IQ. The ''black-white gap'' as its known cannot be closed.

I'd be interested to take a closer look at the details of this in the threads you mentioned. However, I'd point out that the IQ test only measures a certain type of intelligence that shouldn't be confused for overall intelligence. Aside from this, the reason I took up this point was to defend my claim that racial differences are not politically significant. If true, exactly what implication would the evidence that white people have slightly higher IQs have on policy? I don't see what it would change at all. We don't discriminate against white people with low IQ, so there would be no reason to discriminate against black people because of it.

[wenger16]

all the racists in the house put yo hands up

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by milkytea)
I probably should have made it clearer that I have no doubt that race exists, in that there exists a certain amount of physiological diversity in the human species. However, I maintain that these minor physiological differences are not socially or politically significant.

why? out of curioisity

[milkytea]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
why? out of curioisity

Do you believe that specific policy should be made which singles out people with ginger hair or blue eyes for different treatment?

Well, neither do I. By extension, neither do I believe that specific policy should be made which singles out people with dark skin or, for that matter, any physiological feature.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I'd rather have a Jewish lawyer if you're interested. So no, I am not racist

ahhahahahahahahahahahha

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by milkytea)
Do you believe that specific policy should be made which singles out people with ginger hair or blue eyes for different treatment?

Well, neither do I. By extension, neither do I believe that specific policy should be made which singles out people with dark skin or, for that matter, any physiological feature.

You claimed to believe that differences occur across races, maybe they do, maybe they don't, but think that these differences could not possibly be anything which matters politically or socially, perhaps I misunderstood and no I reject the idea that people should be treated differently for the way they look too.

EDIT: I did misunderstand, sorry, you believe that race is only a visual difference yes?

[milkytea]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Yes, you have totally ruined my point because a race I didn't list happens to also have good chess players The fact is that Askenazi Jews account for around 1/3 of nobel prizes while blacks virtually none. I'm not particularly fussed whether this is cultural or genetic, but just in the fact that it's true. I know full well that the USSR put an awful lot of effort into creating grandmasters, and that it is basically Russias national sport. What you really have to answer is why blacks aren't flocking to pick up chess sets. They simply aren't interested (in general).

If you're white and i'm white, our genetics could be 0.1% different, but one of us could have an IQ of 150 and the other 80. One of us could be 3ft tall and weigh 5 stone while the other is 6 ft 5 and weigh 20 stone of pure muscle. Clearly small variations make a big difference.

I am also not so stupid as to not know that a lot of immigrants to this country are trained professionals. I am not adversed to professional immigration around the world. We lose as many as we gain pretty much. What I am adversed to is non-professional immigration, and it is that immigration which causes all of the problems. They are generally the ones who don't integrate, rarely learn the language beyond the basics, and pass those behaviours onto their children who innevitably marry a cousin somewhere down the line. There is a white British culture, even if it is varied, and I think it is worth protecting. I think it should be the dominant culture that others buy into when they come here, rather than us accomodating their culture.

I am all for pluralism until one certain group's answer to not getting their way is to put on a vest and kill as many people as possible...

The case of Anand was not intended to disprove your point in itself. The point is that the cause of observable visual differences between people of different races is cultural, not racial, and this is important. It shows that if you give people the right environment, regardless of their race, they can excel just as much as anybody else. This means that policy should aim to treat people equally, regardless of race.

There's only one certain group whose answer to not getting their way is terrorism, and that's Al-Qaeda. It's not about race or even culture, it's about the political choices of individuals. Most muslims are not fundamentalists, just as most Irish people were not IRA activists.

[milkytea]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
You claimed to believe that differences occur across races, maybe they do, maybe they don't, but think that these differences could not possibly be anything which matters politically or socially, perhaps I misunderstood and no I reject the idea that people should be treated differently for the way they look too.

I see your point a little better now. Well, suppose there are quite a few more differences between races than we know about, just for the sake of argument. Why should it affect policy in any case? If one racial group had a lower average IQ than another, there would be no reason to start discriminating against that group. Obviously there would still be plenty of individuals within that "lower" group that were intelligent.

I can't think of any potential difference between two racial groups that would justifiably lead to a policy change regarding the status of either group. That's the gist of what I'm trying to say here.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
The majority of arguments to date point away from any genetic reasons for why the average IQ for "blacks" is lower/. So I can be forgiven for getting defensive when someone says "once the genetic code is cracked you really will be up ****s creek" as if it were a foregone conclusion. The same can be said for those that claim genetics have a massive part to play 100m sprint dominance of black athletes. It's an old and outdated argument that many people use as a clause to justify their prejudice against "blacks". Not that I'm saying that's the type of person you are.

I think all things being equal the difference would only be about 10 points. But with culture and poverty playing a role, we have a situation in Africa where the majority of people have the equivalent intelligence of a 14 year old white person. I wouldn't consider myself to be in the category of person who is trying to justify an inbuilt prejudice of anyone, because I will happily admit there are races who have superior genetics to whites when it comes to intelligence. I'm not Mr. White pride. I just see the pros and cons of each.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by milkytea)
The case of Anand was not intended to disprove your point in itself. The point is that the cause of observable visual differences between people of different races is cultural, not racial, and this is important. It shows that if you give people the right environment, regardless of their race, they can excel just as much as anybody else. This means that policy should aim to treat people equally, regardless of race.

There's only one certain group whose answer to not getting their way is terrorism, and that's Al-Qaeda. It's not about race or even culture, it's about the political choices of individuals. Most muslims are not fundamentalists, just as most Irish people were not IRA activists.

Well the policy of treating everyone equally should be applied purely because even if blacks have an average IQ of 90, there will still be some, no matter how few, who have IQs that are much higher than this. There are adoption studies, where culture should be roughly mitigated, and that does equal the IQ gap somewhat, but not totally, which is why I suggested above that the real difference with everything being equal is probably around 10-15 points.

I think that wherever Muslims go, there will be an element of jihadism among young males. As a young man it is difficult to read a book praising the war efforts of your leader and his followers, who all get a higher place in heaven, and not want to get involved in someway.

[wenger16]

(Original post by yomomalomo)
Something that should be made clear to the number of racist folk on here is that firstly, loads of people who took part in the opening ceremony volunteered and secondly that 30% of London is non-white. So complaining about there being too many "coloured" children or dancers or whatever is just stupid.

Part of what I believe was so lovely about the opening ceremony is that we were not afraid to truly show our society at large. There were many people from less fortunate backgrounds taking part and there was the children's choir who were deaf as well. Maybe the proportion of deaf people in the opening ceremony was disproportional but nobody is complaining about that!

Why people complain about multiculturalism, I don't know. I suspect many of them are cultural superior "ists". The truth is, that of course in and amongst the many cultures in the UK, there are some issues and problems but there are also many benefits too! Indigenous British culture (if there is one precisely), has its many flaws and potholes, rather than discriminating against other people's cultures we should look to the positives of them and come together to improve our lives as a whole.

Lets take two cultural aspects of the two of the largest cultures in the UK, Indian sub continent culture and indigenous British.

In the case of the treatment of women, generally British culture might claim to be superior. The fact that we don't do honour killings, don't believe we are women's keepers any more and that we allow them greater freedoms are all things which could be said.

However, progressively, our treatment of the elderly has become worse. Youths of today scare elderly people, swear at them, rob, and sometimes attack them. Respect for elderly persons is something deeply ingrained in Asian culture and due to the general closeness of the community, the ill treatment of the elderly rarely happens. I know if I were an elderly man and I had to choose between walking down a Pakistani "ghetto" or a white one late at night, I would most surely pick the former.

If, rather than being segregated, these two cultures mixed more often, then being either a women or an elderly person, I would enjoy a much better existence.

WOW Take a bow son. I agree with everything you said.

[Inzamam99]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Yeah but loads of other countries offer universal care...

Loads of other countries offer it thus we shouldn't be proud of own system. As ever your logic astounds me.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by milkytea)
I see your point a little better now. Well, suppose there are quite a few more differences between races than we know about, just for the sake of argument. Why should it affect policy in any case? If one racial group had a lower average IQ than another, there would be no reason to start discriminating against that group. Obviously there would still be plenty of individuals within that "lower" group that were intelligent.

I can't think of any potential difference between two racial groups that would justifiably lead to a policy change regarding the status of either group. That's the gist of what I'm trying to say here.

I completely agree with this and if group differences are shown to be genetic this is how people should react, because people of every race have been recorded with "genius" IQ's, so to discriminate you are potentially isolating a person with great potential. A genetic study would answer once and for all if whites really are racist, because if there are no differences and society is fair you would expect no disparities in income and academia.

If ethnocentrism was genetic, how would you feel?

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Inzamam99)
Loads of other countries offer it thus we shouldn't be proud of own system. As ever your logic astounds me.

Well, what a thing to choose to show off about when the world is looking at you... hey guys, look at our NHS, with it's terrible cancer survival rates compared to the country you're from. You guys should emulate us, and maybe one day you can have next to zero chance to surviving for more than 5 years after your diagnosis.

Why show of the NHS and not our education system or our police and fire service?

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Elipsis)
You guys should emulate us, and maybe one day you can have next to zero chance to surviving for more than 5 years after your diagnosis.

Why show of the NHS and not our education system or our police and fire service?

Haha. You are joking, right?

[milkytea]

(Original post by Elipsis)
Well the policy of treating everyone equally should be applied purely because even if blacks have an average IQ of 90, there will still be some, no matter how few, who have IQs that are much higher than this. There are adoption studies, where culture should be roughly mitigated, and that does equal the IQ gap somewhat, but not totally, which is why I suggested above that the real difference with everything being equal is probably around 10-15 points.

I think that wherever Muslims go, there will be an element of jihadism among young males. As a young man it is difficult to read a book praising the war efforts of your leader and his followers, who all get a higher place in heaven, and not want to get involved in someway.

Well at least we're finally agreed, to an extent, on the race issue

Surely you could equally say that in Western culture there is a certain inevitability in the existence of e.g. violent youth culture? All cultures have their adverse qualities. It's true that with Islam at the moment this adverse effect is very serious, but what can you do about that? Due to the fact that most Muslims are essentially normal, good people, it would be wrong to discriminate against Islam as a whole. In any case, you can't just discriminate against minority cultures in policy without sacrificing the liberal principles that we're supposed to be proud of in the West.