|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 20, 2005 11:01:18 GMT -5
But also your conclusions seem flawed to me. Even if some prejudice against an ethnic group would be found to be based on some statistic, I believe it would be overly unfair to use it against individuals. If you find that, put, Aleuts aren't good at mathematics, this should not be used as an argument agaisnt the assumption of an Aleut bank-clerk, who, for what you know, could possibly be the only Aleut good in counting money. mean, you should judge individuals basing on their own abilties, competence, inclinations and such. [/quote] The fact is that to check if this Aleut is the only good mathematician of his bunch, is a cost. Why should the bank (hence everybody, as banks take costs and put them on us) bear that cost? Life is unfair. Some are born ugly, some are dumb, some ar poor, some are ill and some (few) are Aleut wannabe bank clerks. You will not make it better trying to remedy the differences that chance determined between all of us.
|
|
|
Post by osservatore on Oct 20, 2005 11:09:20 GMT -5
Life for sure is unfair, but laws can't be.
I dare to say, that the aim of democracy is to build fair life condition for everyone.
Why should a bank afford the cost of evaluating mathematic abilities of the Aleut, seem to me a false question. Actually, the bank should anyway evaluate between different candidates for the job, so, asking the Bank to do so basing on their mathematic skills, instead of their physical look, seems perfectly reasonable for me (and probably more useful for the Bank herself).
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 20, 2005 11:28:11 GMT -5
Life for sure is unfair, but laws can't be. Actually, the bank should anyway evaluate between different candidates for the job, so, asking the Bank to do so basing on their mathematic skills, instead of their physical look, seems perfectly reasonable for me (and probably more useful for the Bank herself). Evaluating is a cost, proportional to the number of evaluated. Following your reasoning the examinations could never be restricted by any pre requisite, as a degree, or experience. Actually somoene without a degree or experience could be better than someone who has such things, but as its less likely, is not worth making the effort to examine him. Plus examination is not bible. It also gives a probability of the ability of the examined to perform a certain job. Thus an adverse probability keeps bearing its importance even if tests are passed. This told, laws are fair when they do not discriminate, not when impose choices on people about what to do with their property. I never advocated discrimination by law. You actually are.
|
|
|
Post by osservatore on Oct 20, 2005 11:53:00 GMT -5
Evaluation should be based on reasonable criteria. I don't know if this, for you, means "positive discrimination" or whatever. For me, it's simply logical.
You want journalist- you aks for someone who can write- not for someone who is white!
you want a football player- you evaluate football skills- not cranial measurementes.
makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 20, 2005 12:08:44 GMT -5
For the very last time, we are talking of restricting examination with pre-requisites.
|
|
|
Post by osservatore on Oct 20, 2005 12:18:32 GMT -5
Nockwasright, for the very last time... we are talking about what criteria are reasonably, or not, included in requisites, pre-requisites, pre-pre-requisites... Don't put me in a crusade against evaluations! And, since I'm supposed to hire individuals, and not a nation or an ethnos, I tend to consider reasonable to evaluate individual skills, and not supposed ethnic tendencies.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 21, 2005 8:51:51 GMT -5
How is that relevant? "I flipped a quarter twice and it landed on heads twice, thus proving a coin will always land on heads." The point is probability. The fact of the matter is gypsy kids are more likely to bum rush you than Spanish kids, and you happen to be able to notice the difference between them phenotypically.
Yeah, it does. It's on the Y chromosome. Or pretty much any raise in testosterone correlates positively with criminal behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Hairless on Oct 21, 2005 9:02:39 GMT -5
But if your kid has not the age yet to distinguish between "bad" blacks an "good" blacks, then it's better to tell him to not only avoid blacks, but all grown ups generally, no matter what is their race. After that, he'll learn by himself to distinguish between the "bad" ones and the "good" ones. But honestly, though you know that they're not all criminals, you always have this phobia, transmitted by the cultural environment, that grows with you. For example here, people fear gypsies, maghrebians, an romanians. It's obvious that just a minority of them are criminals, but even though, when you're alone and you see a group of gypsies or maghrebians, you cross the street. As for Gypsies, this phobia was transmitted by our parents, and grand parents. And the fear of maghrebians, romanians an recently latinos, is a direct consequence of the media who give too much importance an coverage to the crime committed by minorities. The last statistics say that foreigners make 50% of the convicts in our prisons. Then you can imagine the hysteria, such statistics can create. Agreed. In Los Angeles I was attacked twice by white people visiting from Europe (Romanian and French)! And when I quit a job, two months later a Greek immigrant security guard was hired and shot and raped the girl (not sure which order) who replaced me. Am I to assume Europeans are vicious and avoid them? Of course not!! But I have walked past thousands of Black people and Mexicans with little trouble during my life (well ok, some of the Mexicans make a weird clucking sound and ask you to have sex with them, but hardly dangerous). So I think people overestimate the dangerousness of certain ethnic groups and perhaps underestimate others. We have a black Ph.D. student living in our basement (a very nice basement of course) and she can come to my part of the house whenever she wants. I would not even think to question her or the friends she invites over. But we had a white woman living behind us that turned out to be a fraud artist, purposely set her house on fire, was getting letters from a lot of prisoners, and had to be forcibly evicted... As for warning children, if there is a neighborhood that is dangerous you could point out that it is low income or high crime or whatever. If it happens to be predominately another race why not just explain that that particular neighborhood is dangerous and that not all people of race x are, just many of the people living there?
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Oct 21, 2005 9:02:40 GMT -5
So according to mr seizure, we can know, if a baby will be a criminal or a law abiding citizen in the future, by studying his Y chromosome. That's interesting, so we will be able to prevent crime by putting the criminal new born babies, in special jails or something of the kind. The biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Maybe you read a lot of pseudo-scientific trash.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 21, 2005 9:39:59 GMT -5
Seizure is correct about it being found on the Y chromosome. Apparently that was the case with John Wayne Gacy. I believe it's quite rare though. One out of 500 people have it. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone.
It's also true that people with high testosterone do tend to be more violent and sexually promiscuous. Although, a decent IQ score or better limits the amount of influence testosterone may have on a person's behavior.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 21, 2005 10:11:39 GMT -5
"Don't you know that Italians at that time, were known as Thiefs and violent criminals."
Based on my memory I believe that crime rate among Italian immigrants was pretty low in comparison to other groups so yes sometimes prejudices are irrational. For example, mobsters always = Italians in the minds of most Americans when in fact Irish and Jewish mobs have been around also and these ethnic groups worked together often. Al Capone's first major competitor in Chicago was an Irishman, when he was killed off that Irishman's place was taken by his 2nd in command, an Italian, and when he was killed off his place was taken by his 2nd in command, a Pole, and when he was killed off another Irishman from that gang rose up the ranks.
But not all stereotypes are false. Irish had a reputation for drunkness and violence. The term "paddywagon" derived from the fact that most of teh criminals picked up were Irish. Irish neighborhoods during the mid to late 19th century were just as bad as Black Ghettos today. Perhaps worse. Eventually the Irish adopted mainstream American values (oddly enough, thanks in part to the influence of the Catholic church). Although you still have some Irish ghettos scattered about. South Boston comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 21, 2005 19:14:01 GMT -5
So according to mr seizure, we can know, if a baby will be a criminal or a law abiding citizen in the future, by studying his Y chromosome. That's interesting, so we will be able to prevent crime by putting the criminal new born babies, in special jails or something of the kind. The biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Maybe you read a lot of pseudo-scientific trash. I didn't say that at all. My point was that males have more testosterone--what is the genetic component of maleness but the Y chromosome? Men are 100 times more likely to kill than women for a reason, you know. The link between testosterone and aggresiveness is not "pseduo-scientific trash". Don't read everything so literally. You fail to understand probabilities. If black men were 50% likely to rape your daughter every time she passed them by, you wouldn't throw away that piece of information because it would be "unfair" to the just as many black men out there who wouldn't rape your daughter. That the bloody generalization isn't specific to each and every person doesn't make that figure any less signifigant. You can't throw away information because it offends people. I'm not talking about precrime here: I'm talking about trends.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Oct 22, 2005 10:21:10 GMT -5
Let me tell you and I don't mean any disrespect , that what you said is pure nonsense. In my whole life, (NOW I'm 22), I've been stolen/attacked twice. And guess what, on both occasions they were Spaniards. Maybe you should have lived in United States, at the beginning of the last century to feel, what is like, putting everyone in the same bag. Don't you know that Italians at that time, were known as Thiefs and violent criminals. A stupid prejudice I must say. So how would you feel if you were an italian immigrant at that particular time? How would you feel when you'd be called f*cking Guinea. Fortunatly, you live in the develloped Italy of the 20th century. Thank God or whatever you want, for being born in the right place at the right time. Honestly, the ethic I developped for my life, forbids me to discriminate people on the basis of the color of skin. As we say, Ignorance produces prejudice. So if a neighborhood is supposed to be dangerous for my personnal safety, I simply avoid it. If I want to rent my appartement to someone, I'll have my own criterion of selection, that is out of sight of race. You know, Badness gene does not exist. You seem very confused. We are assuming that an ethnicity is de facto remarcably different from the the rest under one aspect. The question is: if is that so, would it be legitmate to discrimnate against such minority with regard to that aspect? Then all your comments about who is actually more or less criminal are off point, cant you read the IF at the beginning of my period you encaptioned (btw Gypsyes commit more crime per capita than Spaniards obviously)? As for your (and others´) generalisation of facts happened in your life, it fits perfectly in the category of "no, Swedes arent tall couse I know one and is short" kind of speech. Is it an irresistible urge to talk about yourselves, or you really dont get its irrilevance (its folly in case you live in Spain)? The nature versus nurture argument is completely off the point too, what has it to do with anything? Why should someone care if he will be mugged as a consequence of a natural impule or a bad education or whatever?
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Oct 23, 2005 9:02:35 GMT -5
Let's display the theory (may be called blunder) that Nockwasright apparently seems to be enthusiastically advocating.
"According to statistics, the number of red cars involved in road accidents, is the highest among all cars of any other color, therefore red cars are more susceptible to have a road accident"
It seems to me that it's a complete REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
Level with me, do you think that because an ethnic group commit more crime than other ethnic groups, that we should seek the cause or the answer in the nature of this group? It sounds to me , boundless fatuousness.
Let's be clear, you're advocating the principle of the smallest possible effort and the greatest possible blunder. The same principle supported by all racialists.
If we should seek the reason of the failure or the success of an ethnic group, or religious group, we ought to look at the social, ideological, psychological and ambient aspects.
Don't think I'm a supporter of affirmative action, welfare, and social aids, I despise socialism as much as I despise nationalism, Nazism, and Fascism. All forms of collectivism, "group-self-defining" and groupthink prevent the individual to reach the climax of his productiveness.
The principle of belong-to, the pride of the credulous mind, the self-importance of the insecure individual who deceives himself by means of the synthetic "WE", the crass stupidity of drowning our existential anxiety in tribalism to flatter our ego, all mortals who need the belong-to to exist, deserve nothing but deep contempt.
So let's return to our subject, all I have to tell you, is that , as an individualist who believes in the principle of the individual will, I look at each person as an individual, not as a part of a certain group.
|
|