|
|
On August 04 2012 01:05 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 00:20 coverpunch wrote:Amid all the politics, sooner or later someone has to answer for this: ![[image loading]](http://delong.typepad.com/.a/6a00e551f080038834017616fafc3b970c-pi) elaborate please. honestly not sure i understand what i looking at.
The graph is the employment to population ratio. It's a different kind of survey from unemployment. In this recession, so many games have been played with the definition of unemployment and we've had an unusual spike in "discouraged" workers so this is an important view.
The troubling part about the decline is that the US has slid back to the same point before women integrated into the labor market.
For our purposes, it highlights how badly this recession has hurt the labor market. For whatever reason, despite government intervention and corporate profits, employment remains a severe problem. I mean, things are definitely better today than in 2009 by many measures but not this one.
|
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now.
|
On August 04 2012 01:28 coverpunch wrote:
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now.
Question from outside US.
Do either party actually address the underlying issue or are they just bantering about which bandage solution is less bad?
|
On August 04 2012 01:44 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 01:28 coverpunch wrote:
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now. Question from outside US. Do either party actually address the underlying issue or are they just bantering about which bandage solution is less bad?
Unfortunately, no.
We can't talk about the underlying issues because part of our ideology is to deny that those things could ever be issues.
|
On August 04 2012 01:28 coverpunch wrote:
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now.
Yeah, sounds like a very fair and totally unbiased description of Obama's economic policies... *cough*
|
On August 04 2012 01:28 coverpunch wrote:
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now.
For a supposed summary of labor market issues, you sure do leave out a large number of important factors. The fact that your summaries rely so heavily on mentions of taxation and regulation automatically colors your spiel as a Republican one. For a good counterpoint to such a myopic focus on taxation, check http://mediamatters.org/print/research/2012/06/08/the-main-problem-with-jobs-growth-is-lack-of-de/185857 . Opinion of Media Matters notwithstanding, the information presented certainly changes the scope of the economic debate, at least relative to what Republicans insist we focus on.
|
On August 04 2012 01:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 01:28 coverpunch wrote:
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now. Yeah, sounds like a very fair and totally unbiased description of Obama's economic policies... *cough*
Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. If you were to fairly characterize Obama's economic approach, it would be fairer to say that he extended financial assistance to those in need to help weather the storm. Any increased regulation came as an aside to the attempt at financial reform and the long term approach to reduce healthcare costs. I'll accept that the latter have been at a bad time and shouldn't have been the focus, but it wasn't REALLY part of a package to get the economy back on track.
|
On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: Show nested quote +On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness.
African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages.
The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation.
TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence.
On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say.
I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that.
|
On August 04 2012 02:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 01:48 kwizach wrote:On August 04 2012 01:28 coverpunch wrote:
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now. Yeah, sounds like a very fair and totally unbiased description of Obama's economic policies... *cough* Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. If you were to fairly characterize Obama's economic approach, it would be fairer to say that he extended financial assistance to those in need to help weather the storm. Any increased regulation came as an aside to the attempt at financial reform and the long term approach to reduce healthcare costs. I'll accept that the latter have been at a bad time and shouldn't have been the focus, but it wasn't REALLY part of a package to get the economy back on track.
There's nothing really to side with. I tried to sum up Obama's economic policy in two sentences and the response hasn't been any better than "you're biased".
The second sentence is explicit that the increased taxes and regulation are an attempt to fix the labor market and help unemployment.
But if you're unhappy with it, then do better. Tell me what Obama's economic policy is in a short paragraph.
|
On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence. Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that.
You'll have to prove your assertion that the slave trade selected individuals predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status, because there are many confounding factors. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states.[22] There were also Africans who had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them.[23] People living around the Niger River were transported from these markets to the coast and sold at European trading ports in exchange for muskets (matchlock between 1540–1606 but flintlock from then on) and manufactured goods such as cloth or alcohol.[24] However, the European demand for slaves provided a large new market for the already existing trade.[25] Further, while those held in slavery in their own region of Africa might hope to escape, those shipped away had little chance of returning to Africa.
In many cases, the slave status of a tribe could have hinged on a single military victory, a single alliance with a neighboring clan, or the fortune to have been from an area with natural resources.
|
On August 04 2012 02:17 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 02:12 aksfjh wrote:On August 04 2012 01:48 kwizach wrote:On August 04 2012 01:28 coverpunch wrote:
To elaborate more, this is where the difference in philosophy comes into play about how to fix the labor market.
For Obama, the attitude is sort of "Hey, we already tried being pro-business with tax cuts and corporate profits have improved but employment hasn't. So we're going to try more taxes and regulations to continue to help mitigate the pain for the long-term unemployed".
For Romney, the attitude is sort of "Well, you haven't tried THAT hard. Corporate profits would have improved regardless so don't take credit for that. But businesses are wary about hiring because they know they'll have to pay more for health care and more in taxes. If we made it more clear that we won't raise taxes ore regulations, then businesses will feel more comfortable hiring. Also workers will be more motivated to find jobs if they're cut off from aid."
Which one resonates with you is your own opinion. But that's kind of where the economic debate is sitting right now. Yeah, sounds like a very fair and totally unbiased description of Obama's economic policies... *cough* Gonna have to side with Kwizach on this one. If you were to fairly characterize Obama's economic approach, it would be fairer to say that he extended financial assistance to those in need to help weather the storm. Any increased regulation came as an aside to the attempt at financial reform and the long term approach to reduce healthcare costs. I'll accept that the latter have been at a bad time and shouldn't have been the focus, but it wasn't REALLY part of a package to get the economy back on track. There's nothing really to side with. I tried to sum up Obama's economic policy in two sentences and the response hasn't been any better than "you're biased". The second sentence is explicit that the increased taxes and regulation are an attempt to fix the labor market and help unemployment. But if you're unhappy with it, then do better. Tell me what Obama's economic policy is in a short paragraph.
I did... he extended tax breaks and benefits to as many people as possible in order to keep them from being without income.
|
On August 04 2012 02:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence. On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that. You'll have to prove your assertion that the slave trade selected individuals predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status, because there are many confounding factors. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_tradeShow nested quote +According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states.[22] There were also Africans who had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them.[23] People living around the Niger River were transported from these markets to the coast and sold at European trading ports in exchange for muskets (matchlock between 1540–1606 but flintlock from then on) and manufactured goods such as cloth or alcohol.[24] However, the European demand for slaves provided a large new market for the already existing trade.[25] Further, while those held in slavery in their own region of Africa might hope to escape, those shipped away had little chance of returning to Africa. In many cases, the slave status of a tribe could have hinged on a single military victory, a single alliance with a neighboring clan, or the fortune to have been from an area with natural resources.
On average, the losers of military conflicts are disadvantaged compared to the winners. Selection of those who are enslaved in military conflicts is still downward.
Also, the very quote you provided also states that some Africans were captured from neighboring ethnic groups, which again has a downward selection effect.
|
On August 04 2012 01:18 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 01:05 Defacer wrote:On August 04 2012 00:20 coverpunch wrote:Amid all the politics, sooner or later someone has to answer for this: elaborate please. honestly not sure i understand what i looking at. The graph is the employment to population ratio. It's a different kind of survey from unemployment. In this recession, so many games have been played with the definition of unemployment and we've had an unusual spike in "discouraged" workers so this is an important view. The troubling part about the decline is that the US has slid back to the same point before women integrated into the labor market. For our purposes, it highlights how badly this recession has hurt the labor market. For whatever reason, despite government intervention and corporate profits, employment remains a severe problem. I mean, things are definitely better today than in 2009 by many measures but not this one.
First, notice the graph's scale which makes the dip look a lot worse than it really is. Second, notice that most of the loos occurred in 2008/2009, during which policy was carried over from Bush.
|
On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence.
What? How does that not imply that? If they are "genetically predisposed to a lower socioeconomic status" then how does that not imply they are inferior as a population group???
Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that.
Well apologies don't make sense, assuming you aren't a racist. But constantly talking about "politically correct libtards" makes you look like a unabashed racist regardless of your argument (and your argument shouldn't even be that strong if you want to talk about accuracy). I don't really know why you want to do that to yourself. It makes me think you haven't had discussions or exposure with actual racists.
|
On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright: “This is another example of over-reaching by people in the field of medical genetics who seem to have no understanding of population genetics, or of the historical events they seek to explain,” he said. “Africa is the most genetically diverse place on earth for humans — so the very idea that you can easily separate out ‘European’ genes from ‘African’ ones is not founded in good science, or good history.” We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence. What? How does that not imply that? If they are " genetically predisposed to a lower socioeconomic status" then how does that not imply they are inferior as a population group???
Because there's more to life than socioeconomic status. Are engineers inferior to businessmen?
On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that. Well apologies don't make sense, assuming you aren't a racist. But constantly talking about "politically correct libtards" makes you look like a unabashed racist regardless of your argument (and your argument shouldn't even be that strong if you want to talk about accuracy). I don't really know why you want to do that to yourself. It makes me think you haven't had discussions or exposure with actual racists.
I've dealt with plenty of racists, including in violent face-to-face encounters (as an ethnic minority myself). This doesn't change the fact that I have a strong distaste for people who try to shut down logical debate with fallacies and insults, whether they are bigoted religous conservatives, or culturally deterministic liberals.
Blindly crying "racism" when someone talks about ethnic issues is about as legtimate as blindly crying "antisemitism" whenever Israel is criticized, or "misogynist" when feminists are criticized.
|
On August 04 2012 02:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 01:18 coverpunch wrote:On August 04 2012 01:05 Defacer wrote:On August 04 2012 00:20 coverpunch wrote:Amid all the politics, sooner or later someone has to answer for this: elaborate please. honestly not sure i understand what i looking at. The graph is the employment to population ratio. It's a different kind of survey from unemployment. In this recession, so many games have been played with the definition of unemployment and we've had an unusual spike in "discouraged" workers so this is an important view. The troubling part about the decline is that the US has slid back to the same point before women integrated into the labor market. For our purposes, it highlights how badly this recession has hurt the labor market. For whatever reason, despite government intervention and corporate profits, employment remains a severe problem. I mean, things are definitely better today than in 2009 by many measures but not this one. First, notice the graph's scale which makes the dip look a lot worse than it really is. Second, notice that most of the loos occurred in 2008/2009, during which policy was carried over from Bush.
The losses were carried over from Bush but that's what happens in a recession. Four years later, it's not really an excuse any more, Obama owns these losses now. Second, the scale makes the dip look bad but it is bad.
What makes it alarming isn't just Obama. What makes it alarming is that the government has tried everything economics textbooks tell us to do and a few unconventional things and the labor market is still struggling. The big problem that everyone acknowledges is that you have a growing number of long-term unemployed people falling off the rolls and young people struggling harder to find jobs.
I think it's correct to criticize Romney's solutions as simplistic and it's grating to see the GOP in its tax cut mantra. But it is problematic that too many Obama supporters won't own the problem either and that Obama seems to have run out of answers beyond extending more support.
tl;dr America's economic problem is the Kobayashi Maru. If you know how to fix it, speak now. Nobody else seems to have any better ideas.
|
On August 04 2012 03:24 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
You keep saying this is all due to political correctness for some reason. I'm not exactly sure where this comes from. Science is not afraid of dealing with that kind of thing. It's not political correctness, it's just accuracy because we understand more. I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. On August 02 2012 10:17 DoubleReed wrote:
Edit: Wait, did you read that article that you linked to??? It says outright:
[quote] We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence. What? How does that not imply that? If they are " genetically predisposed to a lower socioeconomic status" then how does that not imply they are inferior as a population group??? Because there's more to life than socioeconomic status. Are engineers inferior to businessmen? Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that. Well apologies don't make sense, assuming you aren't a racist. But constantly talking about "politically correct libtards" makes you look like a unabashed racist regardless of your argument (and your argument shouldn't even be that strong if you want to talk about accuracy). I don't really know why you want to do that to yourself. It makes me think you haven't had discussions or exposure with actual racists. I've dealt with plenty of racists, including in violent face-to-face encounters (as an ethnic minority myself). This doesn't change the fact that I have a strong distaste for people who try to shut down logical debate with fallacies and insults, whether they are bigoted religous conservatives, or culturally deterministic liberals. Blindly crying "racism" when someone talks about ethnic issues is about as legtimate as blindly crying "antisemitism" whenever Israel is criticized, or "misogynist" when feminists are criticized.
I'm sorry, I didn't think you were implying that blacks were genetically predisposed towards engineering...
Look, you show me evidence of something like that, then I'll change my tune. But what you've shown me so far is wild speculation.
|
On August 04 2012 03:27 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 02:39 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 04 2012 01:18 coverpunch wrote:On August 04 2012 01:05 Defacer wrote:On August 04 2012 00:20 coverpunch wrote:Amid all the politics, sooner or later someone has to answer for this: elaborate please. honestly not sure i understand what i looking at. The graph is the employment to population ratio. It's a different kind of survey from unemployment. In this recession, so many games have been played with the definition of unemployment and we've had an unusual spike in "discouraged" workers so this is an important view. The troubling part about the decline is that the US has slid back to the same point before women integrated into the labor market. For our purposes, it highlights how badly this recession has hurt the labor market. For whatever reason, despite government intervention and corporate profits, employment remains a severe problem. I mean, things are definitely better today than in 2009 by many measures but not this one. First, notice the graph's scale which makes the dip look a lot worse than it really is. Second, notice that most of the loos occurred in 2008/2009, during which policy was carried over from Bush. The losses were carried over from Bush but that's what happens in a recession. Four years later, it's not really an excuse any more, Obama owns these losses now. Second, the scale makes the dip look bad but it is bad. What makes it alarming isn't just Obama. What makes it alarming is that the government has tried everything economics textbooks tell us to do and a few unconventional things and the labor market is still struggling. The big problem that everyone acknowledges is that you have a growing number of long-term unemployed people falling off the rolls and young people struggling harder to find jobs. I think it's correct to criticize Romney's solutions as simplistic and it's grating to see the GOP in its tax cut mantra. But it is problematic that too many Obama supporters won't own the problem either and that Obama seems to have run out of answers beyond extending more support. tl;dr America's economic problem is the Kobayashi Maru. If you know how to fix it, speak now. Nobody else seems to have any better ideas.
Well, it would be a good start to focus on the how while there's so many people who are unemployed, there are also hundreds of thousands of vacant jobs that can't find qualified people to fill them.
|
On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 03:24 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:[quote] I keep saying that this is due to political correctness because I keep getting attacked on grounds of "racism" instead of legitimate arguments (though this has improved as the thread has continued). The idea that science is not afraid with dealing with that kind of thing is ludicrous, and you can see proof of what I'm saying when you look at every single study on ethnic groups and how they preface or otherwise remind the reader that they're not trying to be racist. [quote] We're not "separating European genes from African ones" in the discussion at hand. The only point I'm making with regards to this is that the theory of evolution and natural selection obviously applies to all life, and humans are no exception. Certain liberals tend to insist that we humans are special snowflakes who are immune to this, and that the only differences between groups (regardless of genetics or history) are external. Those politically correct arguments from cultural determinists are completely wrong, and ignoring the realities of selection effects only makes it harder to fix the problems faced by ethnic minorities in the United States. Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence. What? How does that not imply that? If they are " genetically predisposed to a lower socioeconomic status" then how does that not imply they are inferior as a population group??? Because there's more to life than socioeconomic status. Are engineers inferior to businessmen? On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that. Well apologies don't make sense, assuming you aren't a racist. But constantly talking about "politically correct libtards" makes you look like a unabashed racist regardless of your argument (and your argument shouldn't even be that strong if you want to talk about accuracy). I don't really know why you want to do that to yourself. It makes me think you haven't had discussions or exposure with actual racists. I've dealt with plenty of racists, including in violent face-to-face encounters (as an ethnic minority myself). This doesn't change the fact that I have a strong distaste for people who try to shut down logical debate with fallacies and insults, whether they are bigoted religous conservatives, or culturally deterministic liberals. Blindly crying "racism" when someone talks about ethnic issues is about as legtimate as blindly crying "antisemitism" whenever Israel is criticized, or "misogynist" when feminists are criticized. I'm sorry, I didn't think you were implying that blacks were genetically predisposed towards engineering...
I'm sure you actually understood that the analogy was pointing out that differences in socioeconomic status do not imply superiority or inferiority.
On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:Look, you show me evidence of something like that, then I'll change my tune. But what you've shown me so far is wild speculation.
What I've said is a logical inference given contemporary understanding of genetic and cultural selection effects, in the absence of any studies to suggest the contrary.
|
On August 04 2012 04:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 03:24 sunprince wrote:On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 04 2012 02:14 sunprince wrote:On August 03 2012 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 13:44 RavenLoud wrote:On August 03 2012 09:13 HunterX11 wrote:On August 03 2012 09:07 sunprince wrote:On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Of course it applies to us as well. Yes, intelligence is hereditary. These are things we understand quite well. I never said anything different. Except racial factors are extraordinarily minor to intelligence (and are pretty minor in general). Although, technically everyone is a special snowflake because we're all unique. Stop talking about race already. You keep bringing up that strawman to inject emotional arguments related to racism instead of addressing the actual issue. No one is arguing that "racial factors" have anything to do with intelligence; the argument is that genetics and natural selection is relevant to SES (which is affected by, among other things, intelligence). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
What I'm disagreeing with here if your actual statement of these selection effects. The only study you showed me showed very minor effects, and not to anything affecting intelligence. And yet you're the one accusing me ignoring realities. You are the one not being scientifically rigorous here. The evidence we have suggests there could be a very minor effect (maybe only slightly greater than racial factors on intelligence, which is very slim), but it is simply not as massively significant as cultural factors. The study I showed merely demonstrates that humans evolve at a comparable rate to other species. Considering that only 50 years of breeding was enough to produce significant changes in the silver fox, it's not a stretch to argue that several centuries of slavery results in significant effects (not to mention the selection effect behind slave capture). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
Your assumption is that "genetics => intelligence" implies "race => intelligence." This is simply not the way it works. There is massive genetic variability in a race, and the genetic distance between the different races is pathetically small, even to isolated island tribes. Again, stop with the bullshit about "race". It's a strawman. "Race" is not a valid scientific concept (e.g. skin color is not a defining part of genetics). Ethnic groups are (e.g. mitochondrial DNA haplogroups). On August 02 2012 20:52 DoubleReed wrote:
And even more than that, because African Americans are not Africans. They are a hybrid. All humans are hybrids. Nevertheless, reasonable inferences can be made about population clusters based on their general characteristics. How about YOU stop talking about this altogether, you ignorant racist. User was warned for this post I find it ironic seeing that it was him who started this whole thing by misunderstanding sunprince. As a reminder in case he edits it later, sunprince posted these words himself: On August 01 2012 11:52 sunprince wrote:On August 01 2012 11:08 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2012 11:02 kwizach wrote:On August 01 2012 05:26 xDaunt wrote:
And just because I'm in the mood to start a shitstorm, let me expound upon this a little bit by providing a textbook example of why culture matters with regards to economic success. Let's compare the Asian and African-American communities in the US. Both populations had pretty shitty situations when they came to the US. Blacks were slaves or otherwise indentured servants (or barely better). Asians, though not technically slaves, were treated just as badly and sometimes worse. Hell, the Asians had to deal with laws that prohibited their ownership of real property. Now let's fast forward from the 19th century to now. I don't think anyone would dispute that Asians have been tremendously successful in this country whereas African-Americans, to put it charitably, are still a work in progress. Why is there still such a disparity after many generations?
I posit to you that this disparity is strictly the result of cultural differences between the two populations, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation to the contrary. However, I'm all ears. Erm, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You haven't even defined "culture". What's the Palestinian "culture" and how exactly has it impacted the economic growth of Palestine as opposed to the living conditions of the people and the political status of the entity? I already said that a comparison of Isarelis and Palestinians doesn't make for a good test case because of numerous complicating factors. I'm more than happy to talk about blacks and Asians though. I've been pitching that question for over ten years and have never gotten a good response from a liberal. Maybe you can do better. Not a liberal, but I'd argue that the issue here isn't the culture of "blacks" or "Asians" as a group. Rather, one must consider that there are multiple cultures within those groups. For example, if you look deeper into the socioeconomic status of "Asians", you'd find significant differences between Chinese/Indians/Koreans and Vietnamese/Cambodians/Laotians. Similarly, you can find differences between African-Americans descended from slaves and those who immigrated more recently. This suggests that the "cultural differences" that you point to actually arise from selection effects. Asian immigrants (with the exception of refugee groups) tend to be the best and brightest from their home countries, so Asian-Americans tend to have a culture disposed towards socioeconomic success. By contrast, the Africans who managed to get captured or sold into slavery probably weren't the best and brightest, and several centuries of slaveowners attempting to breed physically fit yet intellectually diminished/obedient slaves probably didn't help. TL;DR: people who come to America voluntarily tend to be above-average; people who come to America involuntarily tend to be below-average.As a side note, it's also actually rather interesting that you frame your argument as a conservative one. The fact that you attribute the disparity to strictly cultural differences, rather than as a combination of genetic and cultural differences, strikes me as a rather politically correct liberal explanation already (while the suggestion that genetic factors are at work here is probably controversial, I don't think it's a huge stretch to consider the genetic selection effects of several centuries of slavery). He is not saying that black people are inferior. He is not saying that it is the fault of African-Americans that they are inferior. But he is still saying that they are inferior and that there is even a genetic component to it. If this is a misunderstanding, he hasn't corrected anyone's misunderstanding of his plain and obvious language at all except for claiming that his position is scientific and that disagreeing is motivated by political correctness. African-Americans have lower socio-economic status because the selection effects of slavery have left them genetically/culturally/historically predisposed towards lower socioeconomic status. This doesn't imply they are inferior as a population group, the same way that Asian-American genetic/cultural/historical selection effects leaving them predisposed towards lesser political status doesn't imply that Asian-Americans are an inferior population group. Every population group has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. The point about political correctness is that libtards who believe in cultural determinism completely deny that genetic selection has any effect, when in truth it's one of a number of causes for the present situation. TL;DR: Saying that Protoss has a weaker economy doesn't imply that you think Protoss is an inferior race; it's just a statement of fact that certain fanboy noobs will insist isn't true despite the evidence. What? How does that not imply that? If they are " genetically predisposed to a lower socioeconomic status" then how does that not imply they are inferior as a population group??? Because there's more to life than socioeconomic status. Are engineers inferior to businessmen? On August 04 2012 03:13 DoubleReed wrote:On August 03 2012 21:42 DoubleReed wrote:
Well sunprince kind of distracted us from Mr. Stereotypes-are-Valid xDaunt. Though we already shot down all of xDaunt's arguments, and he basically accepted defeat so there wasn't much to say. I feel like sunprince was just absolutely refusing to clarify his position and instead yammering on about political correctness, which is the kind of bullshit that racists say. I've clarified my position repeatedly. If by "refusing to clarify", you mean "refusing to apologize in the face of accusations of racism", then sure, I refused to do that. Well apologies don't make sense, assuming you aren't a racist. But constantly talking about "politically correct libtards" makes you look like a unabashed racist regardless of your argument (and your argument shouldn't even be that strong if you want to talk about accuracy). I don't really know why you want to do that to yourself. It makes me think you haven't had discussions or exposure with actual racists. I've dealt with plenty of racists, including in violent face-to-face encounters (as an ethnic minority myself). This doesn't change the fact that I have a strong distaste for people who try to shut down logical debate with fallacies and insults, whether they are bigoted religous conservatives, or culturally deterministic liberals. Blindly crying "racism" when someone talks about ethnic issues is about as legtimate as blindly crying "antisemitism" whenever Israel is criticized, or "misogynist" when feminists are criticized. I'm sorry, I didn't think you were implying that blacks were genetically predisposed towards engineering... I'm sure you actually understood that the analogy was pointing out that differences in socioeconomic status do not imply superiority or inferiority. Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 04:08 DoubleReed wrote:Look, you show me evidence of something like that, then I'll change my tune. But what you've shown me so far is wild speculation. What I've said is a logical inference given contemporary understanding of genetic and cultural selection effects, in the absence of any studies to suggest the contrary.
"Logical inference" is exactly the same as "baseless conjecture". Valid arguments with no evidence do not contribute anything to any debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
