[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
This is irrelevant and doesn't refute the fact that differences in one trait do not necessarily mean everything else differs correspondingly.

"Studies of different markers yield an even more complicated picture, where the only common element we can recognise is that each one is inconsistent with all the others. The only way we see to interpret this contradictory set of results is to admit that its incongruences are not due to errors in the choice of the markers or of the methods, but rather represent a basic feature of human diversity. In other words, different genetic polymorphisms are differently distributed over the planet, and their distributions are not generally correlated. Clusterings are always possible, but the fact that two populations fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) when described at loci A, B, C does not imply that they will fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) based on loci X, Y, Z. In addition, differences between populations are often so subtle that the location of boundaries may change substantially even when the same data are analysed under different assumptions on the mutational model" (Barbujani and Belle, 2006)

It is clear that intelligence and 'race' are non-concordant.

Yes, there is biological variation, but it doesn't mean this biological variation is moderated by anything specifically geographical (as demonstrated by blood group incidences).

You refused to answer because current location does not indicate migration patterns. I've given a diagram using possibly the best indicator of exactly who the Japanese are and who the Haitians who are West African and European, the y-chromosome and it indicates a separate history. If blood group does matter which I'm sure you'll find some reason to claim it doesn't Haitians are mostly O whereas Japanese are mostly B. So, is there the possibility that within the national borders of these two nations the populations have different frequencies of allele variations which cause variations in IQ?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Menefrego88)
He was killed because he was white and a white person being killed for being white in a white nation is too far. We must act before we are a minority.

Someone being killed because of their race is equally wrong no matter what race it is and in which country. It doesn't become worse because we are a majority here, and there is nothing wrong with there being a lot of ethnic minorities. It really has nothing to do with it.
It's racism we need to get rid of, not ethnic minorities. Racism in ANY race.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
You refused to answer because current location does not indicate migration patterns.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I've given a diagram using possibly the best indicator of exactly who the Japanese are and who the Haitians who are West African and European, the y-chromosome and it indicates a separate history.

So what? The presence of unintelligent Japanese people and intelligent Haitians demonstrates intelligence is either not inescapably genetic or it is not determined by 'race'/geography.

If blood group does matter which I'm sure you'll find some reason to claim it doesn't Haitians are mostly O whereas Japanese are mostly B.

I've demonstrated various traits do not correspond to geographical or phylogenetic difference. Being Japanese or being Haitian does not imply the possession of various traits.

"[...] [W]hile clustering methods are capable of assigning an individual to a geographic population with a high degree of certainty, given that individual's genotype, it is not possible to predict accurately the genotype of an individual given his or her geographic origin" (Feldman and Lewontin, 2008).

So, is there the possibility that within the national borders of these two nations the populations have different frequencies of allele variations which cause variations in IQ?

We're back to the start:

Why are you placing so much emphasis on grouping unrelated persons when intelligence is individualised? It does not matter what other people have or what other unrelated people nearby are doing. If certain individuals are intelligent, certain individuals are intelligent; they have no bearing on the unintelligent individuals in the population and (assuming intelligence is inescapably genetic) clearly have not acquired the "unintelligence gene".

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
We are proud of our ethnic diversity (most of us) and so we were showing off

It's possible to be proud of tolerance (if you're dispassionate/not very well informed), or proud of the achievements of members of different communities, not sure about proud of the result of a historic lack of coherent immigration policy ('diversity' itself) though

(Original post by PythianLegume)
it's not meant to be real, it is a representation.

Yes, I think we are sophisticated enough to get that.. fantasy or not it was still rammed down our throats, if you missed that fact then I suggest you contact NHS Direct concerning your eyesight

(Original post by milkytea)
Cameron said he wanted a "muscular liberalism" .. so I don't see the Tories' stance as being particularly hypocritical or anything

It's worse than that - it's a wolf in sheep's clothing routine, designed to appeal to people on the right who have for some time been disheartened by how broken Britain has become whilst appeasing the idealism of the centre; it won't wash with those of us who can see through such thinly veiled PR BS and who are sick of seeing various standards eroded in the UK

(Original post by OneTimer)
The only reason some politicians say/said it doesn't because they want to appeal to BNP/EDL voters

Oh dear. He was not towing a Conservative line, he was towing a conservative* one (evermore distinct in actuality)

(Original post by milkytea)
What exactly is the advantage of having a country in which only people of a certain skin colour are "allowed"?

It's not a matter of an exclusively white/monoculturalist adgenda so far as most of us are concerned, it's a matter of (sensible), sustainable transitioning of intercultural systems (real/lasting assimilation), rather than marching armies into the 'melting pot' + closing eyes + crossing fingers and ending up with ghettos, correlated crime/serious crime trends, segregation/isolation, stigma, tension and terrorism

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Someone being killed because of their race is equally wrong no matter what race it is and in which country

Inhabitants shouldn’t have to take their chances in a (safe/civil) society that they/their forebears have helped build. All unprovoked violence, and particularly serious crime, is wrong. However immigrant gangs singling out indigenous peoples for murder (be it [white] colonialists in the Americas/Australasia/Africa or whomever), seems somehow that bit worse. You may not agree but it is an opinion to which others are entitled and not necessarily indicative of bigotry/racism

[M4LLY]

Its like everything else, it has its good points and bad points

[milkytea]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
It's worse than that - it's a wolf in sheep's clothing routine, designed to appeal to people on the right who have for some time been disheartened by how broken Britain has become whilst appeasing the idealism of the centre; it won't wash with those of us who can see through such thinly veiled PR BS and who are sick of seeing various standards eroded in the UK



It's not a matter of an exclusively white/monoculturalist adgenda so far as most of us are concerned, it's a matter of (sensible), sustainable transitioning of intercultural systems (real/lasting assimilation), rather than marching armies into the 'melting pot' + closing eyes + crossing fingers and ending up with ghettos, correlated crime/serious crime trends, segregation/isolation, stigma, tension and terrorism

Your first point is quite true. I only meant that Cameron wasn't being hypocritical in the exact sense the OP meant.

I find your second point to be understandable, although I don't fully sympathise with it. Out of interest, what was your view on the Olympic ceremony regarding its presentation of multiculturalism?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
It's possible to be proud of tolerance (if you're dispassionate/not very well informed), or proud of the achievements of members of different communities, not sure about proud of the result of a historic lack of coherent immigration policy ('diversity' itself) though

Yes, I think we are sophisticated enough to get that.. fantasy or not it was still rammed down our throats, if you missed that fact then I suggest you contact NHS Direct concerning your eyesight

It's worse than that - it's a wolf in sheep's clothing routine, designed to appeal to people on the right who have for some time been disheartened by how broken Britain has become whilst appeasing the idealism of the centre; it won't wash with those of us who can see through such thinly veiled PR BS and who are sick of seeing various standards eroded in the UK

Oh dear. He was not towing a Conservative line, he was towing a conservative* one (evermore distinct in actuality)

It's not a matter of an exclusively white/monoculturalist adgenda so far as most of us are concerned, it's a matter of (sensible), sustainable transitioning of intercultural systems (real/lasting assimilation), rather than marching armies into the 'melting pot' + closing eyes + crossing fingers and ending up with ghettos, correlated crime/serious crime trends, segregation/isolation, stigma, tension and terrorism

Inhabitants shouldn’t have to take their chances in a (safe/civil) society that they/their forebears have helped build. All unprovoked violence, and particularly serious crime, is wrong. However immigrant gangs singling out indigenous peoples for murder (be it [white] colonialists in the Americas/Australasia/Africa or whomever), seems somehow that bit worse. You may not agree but it is an opinion to which others are entitled and not necessarily indicative of bigotry/racism

Enthnic minorities who are born here are British, just as British as a white person. There is no such thing as an indigenous white British person. Plenty of ethnic minorities have helped to build modern Britain.
Racism is what's wrong, not ethnic minorities being here.

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by blacklemon)
Omg wow. I couldn't help resisting to comment when I saw this.
"Cheap system that gets the job done" ..you obviously have never been sick.
I got cancer..twice. I went to get treated in France, and thank god I did, because I maintain till today that I wouldn't have survived if I had stayed in England. The difference in health care is staggering. When I had appointments in England, it was just so awful, to a point my parents decided for me to go private. I am in NO WAY proud of the NHS. My mum's friend got treated for breast cancer under the NHS, she didn't even get a catheter port put in and got sent home after chemo in a BUS!
I really didn't like the whole NHS part of the Opening Ceremony, why be proud of that ?!
Otherwise I thought it was awesome although I do agree a little "too" multicultural..

Yes you're right, no-one in the UK who gets cancer survives because the NHS is just that awful

[OneTimer]

(Original post by tufc)
It's never worked. My area has been completely ruined by it. The idea that you can get loads of completely different people, put them all together and expect harmony is utopian nonsense.

That's because people like you don't like it to work and have some sort of phobia towards cultures that you have never seen before. You would probably also say that ethnic minorities also tend to segregate themselves from society and don't integrate. But how can they do so if they are faced with such hostility from their hosts? Often I hear of how immigrants/ethnic minorities have sectioned themselves off from rest of society 'in their ghettos' but often these ghettos (or what actually are areas with significant numbers of them) have been caused because those who were originally living there move away because they don't want to live in an area with people who have a different culture to themselves because they have some sort of phobia or feel unnecessarily threatened.

And how has your area been ruined? Would be interested to hear this case.

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by milkytea)
Out of interest, what was your view on the Olympic ceremony regarding its presentation of multiculturalism?

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
rammed down our throats

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Enthnic minorities who are born here are British, just as British as a white person

Classification is a matter of formality in the technical sense but of opinion in the subjective sense e.g. according to other Britons rather than merely on paper/in law ~ few Britons (of whatever ethnicity/heritage) would accept a newcomer as being as British as someone more established/assimilated (as a function of immersion over time/heritage) and most find it that bit more objectionable for 'outsiders' to enter territories and then disrespect/attack the host populations - why should that be any different when white people are on the receiving end (for a change)?

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Plenty of ethnic minorities have helped to build modern Britain

Indeed they have, and many are a credit to the nation - indeed I have voluntarily conceeded the point that there are those whom are more dutiful/arguably more 'British' than I in other threads

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Racism is what's wrong, not ethnic minorities being here

I can't speak for those with more narrow minded/emotive/extreme views than myself but personally it's a matter of what's both sensible (read: sustainable)

[OneTimer]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Oh dear. He was not towing a Conservative line, he was towing a conservative* one (evermore distinct in actuality)

I don't think you properly understand conservative ideology.

You can't just say that a stance opposed to multi-culturalism is distinctly a conservative one. Criticism of multi-culturalism has only really gained prominence in recent years at the end of the Labour government and in response to excess immigration. Yes, there were inklings of it in conservative ideology in the 60/70s with Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech and then onwards from that, but it was never given any significance and largely shunned as a very minor faction of the ideology.

If you were to look at conservative ideology from the 19th century, in particular the influence of Benjamin Disraeli, you would find that in fact traditional conservatism would be far more accepting of multi-culturalism than the elements of anti-multi-culturalism (small 'c') conservatives today. This is because of their notion of an organic society and being far more accepting of people across demographic factors. This is very much similar to Cameron's notion of a 'Big Society.' But, then he goes and says that he doesnt agree with multi-culturalism. This goes back to my original point in my first post that politicians are liars and hypocrites and their ideologies and what they believe don't really matter in what they say/do. Only to get more votes do they do these and this is what I meant about attracting BNP/EDL voters.

Overall point: it is not an ideological thing

[willbee]

To be fair, I know quite a few white people who applied and didn't get to be a part of it. I know two of those who did and one black guy who was in it as well. But I don't know that many black people so...

[timeofflight]

(Original post by I Kant Spall)
I watched the opening ceremony with my American family and they all asked if this was actually England. I can only imagine that other foreigners had the same confused thoughts, especially when the BBC interviewed East London locals.

What do you mean? I really liked the opening ceremony. I mean obviously the industrial revolution did not just sprout out the ground or anything, and hospitals are not full of people dancing on beds that are actually trampolines... but I thought it was quite good and celebrated the aspects of Britain today that we should be proud of. Also I heard that the TV coverage in the USA cut the section about remembrance of the war dead and replaced it with an interview with someone. Do you know if this is true?

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by OneTimer)
I don't think you properly understand conservative ideology.

I understand the roles of progressivism and political economy in (mal)forming modern "conservative ideology" thanks son; my point still remains. Conservative party policy is increasingly divorced from what most of us understand to be true conservativism 'with a small c'

(Original post by OneTimer)
You can't just say that a stance opposed to multi-culturalism is distinctly a conservative one

Indeed one cannot, categorically, make such a claim (and indeed I have not). People really need to get out of the rather juvenile habits of making baseless assumptions and binary modes of thought

(Original post by OneTimer)
Criticism of multi-culturalism has only really gained prominence in recent years at the end of the Labour government and in response to excess immigration

It entered mainstream Conservative party political rhetoric around the time of Howard's botched election attempt (2005)

(Original post by OneTimer)
Neil Kinnock's Enoch Powell's* 'Rivers of Blood' speech

Neil Kinnock was leader of the Labour party son

(Original post by OneTimer)
This is very much similar to Cameron's notion of a 'Big Society.'

Big Society is about immigration? That's funny.. I thought it was about papering over the cracks in the ideology of shrinking the state to sustain future generations

(Original post by OneTimer)
then he goes and says that he doesnt agree with multi-culturalism

I wasn't aware he'd said that, can you find the relevant quote?

Little tip: If you're going to condescend someone then make sure you're bang on the money, or you may end up looking a tit

[tufc]

(Original post by OneTimer)
I don't think you properly understand conservative ideology.

You can't just say that a stance opposed to multi-culturalism is distinctly a conservative one. Criticism of multi-culturalism has only really gained prominence in recent years at the end of the Labour government and in response to excess immigration. Yes, there were inklings of it in conservative ideology in the 60/70s with Neil Kinnock's 'Rivers of Blood' speech and then onwards from that, but it was never given any significance and largely shunned as a very minor faction of the ideology.

If you were to look at conservative ideology from the 19th century, in particular the influence of Benjamin Disraeli, you would find that in fact traditional conservatism would be far more accepting of multi-culturalism than the elements of anti-multi-culturalism (small 'c') conservatives today. This is because of their notion of an organic society and being far more accepting of people across demographic factors. This is very much similar to Cameron's notion of a 'Big Society.' But, then he goes and says that he doesnt agree with multi-culturalism. This goes back to my original point in my first post that politicians are liars and hypocrites and their ideologies and what they believe don't really matter in what they say/do. Only to get more votes do they do these and this is what I meant about attracting BNP/EDL voters.

Overall point: it is not an ideological thing

Sorry, whose Rivers of Blood speech? I don't know how you can claim to be any sort of authority on the history of conservative ideology when you think it was Neil Kinnock who made that speech. Firstly, that was Enoch Powell, not Kinnock; secondly, Kinnock was an MP for and leader of the Labour Party.

[tufc]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
I understand the roles of progressivism and political economy in (mal)forming modern "conservative ideology" thanks son; my point still remains. Conservative party policy is increasingly divorced from what most of us understand to be true conservativism 'with a small c'

Indeed one cannot, categorically, make such a claim (and indeed I have not). People really need to get out of the rather juvenile habits of making baseless assumptions and binary modes of thought

It entered mainstream Conservative party political rhetoric around the time of Howard's botched election attempt (2005)

Neil Kinnock was leader of the Labour party son

Big Society is about immigration? That's funny.. I thought it was about papering over the cracks in the ideology of shrinking the state to sustain future generations

I wasn't aware he'd said that, can you find the relevant quote?

Little tip: If you're going to condescend someone then make sure you're bang on the money, or you may end up looking a tit

I can't believe the amount of utter nonsense that OneTimer guy is spouting about conservative ideology!

[OneTimer]

(Original post by tufc)
Sorry, whose Rivers of Blood speech? I don't know how you can claim to be any sort of authority on the history of conservative ideology when you think it was Neil Kinnock who made that speech. Firstly, that was Enoch Powell, not Kinnock; secondly, Kinnock was an MP for and leader of the Labour Party.

Sorry.. that was a mistake! Am reading a book on Kinnock's influence on Blair and he was on the forefront of my mind

[Mister Dead]

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

So what? The presence of unintelligent Japanese people and intelligent Haitians demonstrates intelligence is either not inescapably genetic or it is not determined by 'race'/geography.

I've demonstrated various traits do not correspond to geographical or phylogenetic difference. Being Japanese or being Haitian does not imply the possession of various traits.

"[...] [W]hile clustering methods are capable of assigning an individual to a geographic population with a high degree of certainty, given that individual's genotype, it is not possible to predict accurately the genotype of an individual given his or her geographic origin" (Feldman and Lewontin, 2008).

We're back to the start:

Why are you placing so much emphasis on grouping unrelated persons when intelligence is individualised? It does not matter what other people have or what other unrelated people nearby are doing. If certain individuals are intelligent, certain individuals are intelligent; they have no bearing on the unintelligent individuals in the population and (assuming intelligence is inescapably genetic) clearly have not acquired the "unintelligence gene".

Not all lions in the jungle will attack you, but most will.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Not all lions in the jungle will attack you, but most will.

It's impossible to compare humans to other animals because they cannot be assessed in the same way, are unable to contemplate the consequences of various actions and are typically unable to resist their proclivities.