Why do PC Liberals hate/deny genetics so much?

Originally posted by jonnywhite

If people get proper nutrition, education, parenting and whole list of other things, they generally maximize their IQ. This should be our goal. Africa, for example, has a LOT of room to grow. Focusing on the genetics aspect is just an excuse for racism since it's not as easily changed.

What do you mean “our goal”? Africa is a resource wealthy country. The best coffee in the world is grown in Ethiopia. How many African’s are drinking fluoridated water, and eating foods full of trans-fats, hydrogenated oils, sugar, genetically modified grains, and hormone treated meat? Neither you nor anyone else here has the capacity to cure any African nation's political woes. The African’s fecundity seems to be their biggest problem. Your concern should be the problems in your own nation, that is how you will best help your favorite continent of victims.

Keep in mind that the average IQ of african-americans in the US is not a good measure of their average IQ since the african-american population is still recovering from segregation and poverty. Imagine if the average white caucasion american was as poor as an african-american. But since white americans tend to live in more wealthy neighborhoods, they tend to have more opportunities to enrich themselves and to be their best. We KNOW that poor populations have very low college graduation rates. This may or may not be connected to IQ since success is tied to lots of things, not just IQ. I would argue that poverty stunts developing children and thus keeps their IQ low.

Yes, I'll keep that in mind since you say that it is so. My white father stole chickens to feed his family and begged for charity from grocers as a child. My mother said that she saw my father as a way out because she never had her own room and was still sleeping in her parent’s bedroom when they met. Neither one of my parents ever had a college education nor did they receive help from anyone. My great grandfather picked cotton for a living. I went to an integrated school with a female black principle. My parents made their loot through hard work and an entrepreneurial spirit. The omissive PC racial victimology garbage is insulting and racially bigoted; unfortunately it will forever keep being spewed whenever this topic comes up. Someone already brought up the victim Mike Tyson whom was arrested 38 times before the age of 13. He was a career criminal that was repeatedly treated with kid gloves even before his celebrity. He bit off part Holyfield’s ear, yet only received a year suspension despite being a rapist and career criminal; athletes that simply test positive for marijuana get those kind of suspensions (e.g. Wiki- marijuana suspension: “was announced at the hearing in May 2012 that Diaz was suspended for one year, retroactive to February 4, 2012, and fined 30 percent of his fight purse earned from the Condit bout”).

Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University

Here we go again with the “there is no such thing as race” but the ongoing comparison and skewed science is used to give justification for preferential racial treatment. Look at who conducted this study. What kind of results would you predict an organization like this would come up with? Why are they study race if none exist? Why don’t they just focus their efforts on helping the unfortunate? With controls and adjustments to create the desired results you will get the desired results. Should we also conclude that for the last 2,000 years poverty has globally prevented blacks from creating any of the sciences or world changing mega genius? Even if this nonsensical idea of a universal equality were true, it is tyranny when the warm fuzzy idealists use the concept to subjugate one group in hopes of alleviating their inequality with another group. How is it that impoverished oriental children in dirt floor classrooms were able to outperform white children on IQ tests? Why is it that some of the most successful people ever only had remedial educations or lived at a time before any compulsory education? How could war torn Vietnamese families immigrate to the U.S. and become wealthy in a single generation?

IMHO, we all have plusses and minuses. We're a big human family. Help each other.

I’ll need access to your bank account and an inventory of everything you own so that I can redistribute your wealth amongst the less fortunate.

reply to post by Wotaneyed


It's funny you should say that. Poverty can have a detrimental influence on potential success; johnnywhite provided evidence, and it seems you've ignored it. You gave an anecdote about the fruits your parents' thrift, so I don't understand why you can't believe that someone at the bottom has the exact same chances as that someone on the top (save genetics).

My parents are both second generation British Afro-Caribbeans, born and raised in 60s London, amidst the era of "Keep Britain White" and "No Blacks, No Irish and No Dogs". Neither went further than secondary school education. My Mum was accepted to a design college but chose a well-paying data entry job instead, while my Dad completed training for the Merchant Navy, but fell into another crowd and ended up working a few jobs before settling into bus driving.

Bus driving, I believe, is ultimately what made our family! My parents both got free transport passes, (as did my maternal grandparents, Granddad was also a driver) meaning they paid diddly-squat for travel. That means a hell of a lot in London. With Mum being the frugal type as well, that money got saved, as did most of their earnings.

Money that many parents would spend on toys and designer clothes was used for extracurricular activities and any (somewhat educational) interests that my and I held. My parents didn't receive housing or child benefits (although UK domiciles do get a certain amount of child tax credit I think, different thing), but they did well without it. They taught us the value of hard work, of education, and responsibility of wealth. Guess what? They weren't the only ones. There were several black families in our downtrodden area that did the same thing. But they all had at least one perk.

The African and Afro-Caribbean communities in the UK run on adversity. The word 'community' therefore is a misnomer. As a group, we do not care for each other. There are rivalries depending on which tribe you come from if you're from the same African region as your adversary. Just African? Then it's West vs East. The Caribbean countries have disputes depending on which island you're from. Larger islands mock smaller islands. Smaller islands mock everyone. Everyone distrusts Jamaicans, and Jamaicans love to live up to it because it's so damn hilarious.

Now South Asian and East Asian communities suffer the same fate, but here's where they differ from their black counterparts. When you whittle them down to the lowest common denominator, they'll stick together. Bangladeshis help each other out. Kashmiris help each other out. Cantonese, Vietnamese and so on.

Why does this happen? I can only give you a hypothesis based on what I know about patterns of immigration. Save a couple London boroughs, black immigration between the 40s and 60s was sparsely distributed across the country. So discounting cultural centres like Brixton (which has problems of its own) it was rare for blacks to set up sizable communities. South Asians, for example, were migrating already, but only came in larger waves during the early 70s.

With stronger memories of their pre-colonial cultural identities as compared to Caribbeans, they were more accustomed to settling in more nucleated patterns. In time, they were in control of the small-scale economic circulation within their own communities, giving parents even more time to focus on the improvement of their children's social standing, rather than simply working to survive. The only difference between this kind of community and a ghetto is unity, plain and simple.

reply to post by kaylaluv


I am a conservative and know full well that there is a genetic component. I also know that environmental factors can cause the activation or silencing of genes. I would suspect that homosexuality would be a recessive trait (or humanity would have vanished eons ago) that typically wouldn't express itself. In most cases, it would not manifest, except in cases of environmental promotion, which in this case has taken on a political dimension.
So I really don't understand what your point is other than to take a cheap shot at claiming conservatives are scientifically retarded because most do not believe in providing environmental support to what would be a self limiting recessive gene failure, and are against encouraging recessive gene expression.
For poking a stick at conservatives, I have a question for you. It is now easy to select children on numerous things with sex or eye color being quite popular. Once the genes on sexual orientation are identified and treatment is made available, ie RvsW, where will you stand then? which of your dogmas will you throw over the side?

Ok, so let's say you are right, their is a genetic component to intelligence and some races just don't have it like some others do. What do we do about it? These threads always boggle my mind. It's the old "Just asking questions" brand of trolling.

Tell us what you would do.

Originally posted by WWu777
Why do liberals and politically correct people always seem to deny the genetic factor in human behavior

Because it calls into question the whole fanciful idea of "spirit" and "soul" and the perceived need [by godtards] for religion as a 'moral compass'. Which, of course, calls into question the very fundamentals of religion.

It comes back to 'free-thinkers versus godtards' -- i.e., assayable facts versus airy-fairy superstition.

Thank you very much OP for the very enlightening information.

Originally posted by kimish
Point being, Their is a difference amongst the races and if we were to acknowledge that and embrace it I guarantee that our school system would be better, crime rate would go down, etc.

How exactly would acknowledging that there is a difference between races lower the crime rates and improve the school system? I don't really see how these correlate.

reply to post by Xaphan



It's something they would do, but I find it rather curious they won't tell us what that something is.

reply to post by WWu777


You have set up a strawman as "liberals" don't deny genetics at all. They do deny the misconceptions of genetics displayed by people with no general knowledge of them, but are well aware of the nature/nurture attributes.

I would go even further to say that "conservatives" are much worse about understanding and believing genetics than "liberals" are. Look at the homosexuality debate. It's genetic, yet "conservatives" will deny that with the last breath in their body.

Your premise is quite flawed and seems to be an ill attempt at justifying racism as opposed to wanting to actually look at genetics.

Originally posted by beezzer
Hold on there! As a conservative, I take issue.



There isn't, really. As a mixed race individual, I've had the oppourtunity to study this aspect, since my masters degree is in Developmental Neurobiology.

I didn't know your degree was in Neurobiology!



AWESOME Beezze!!

My Mathematics and Physics degrees salute you!

reply to post by WWu777


Traditionally it is the right wing of the republican party that denies science.

Originally posted by Rastus3663
reply to post by WWu777

 

Traditionally it is the right wing of the republican party that denies science.

I think WWu777 is one of those modern right-wingers that approves only of the science that fuels eugenic ideologies.

Originally posted by robobbob
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I am a conservative and know full well that there is a genetic component. I also know that environmental factors can cause the activation or silencing of genes. I would suspect that homosexuality would be a recessive trait (or humanity would have vanished eons ago) that typically wouldn't express itself. In most cases, it would not manifest, except in cases of environmental promotion, which in this case has taken on a political dimension.
So I really don't understand what your point is other than to take a cheap shot at claiming conservatives are scientifically retarded because most do not believe in providing environmental support to what would be a self limiting recessive gene failure, and are against encouraging recessive gene expression.
For poking a stick at conservatives, I have a question for you. It is now easy to select children on numerous things with sex or eye color being quite popular. Once the genes on sexual orientation are identified and treatment is made available, ie RvsW, where will you stand then? which of your dogmas will you throw over the side?

edit on 27-10-2012 by robobbob because: x

To refer to homosexuality as something that needs treatment is a bit silly.
What if those people are happy to be homosexual or bisexual?

The Ancient Greeks, Spartans, Macedonians and pre-Christian Romans had no problems with homosexuality or bisexuality.

It was only the influence of the monotheistic cults such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam which took offense to the practice and considered it as a 'sin'.

The Athenians even had a statue of two male lovers in their main public square to celebrate the founding of their democracy as the killing of the tyrant ruler was due to a lover quarrel....between men.

The Spartans all had male partners and it was considered normal for Macedonians to have adult male lovers. Both Alexander the Great and his father had male lovers. I read about this in the book 'Alexander the Great' by Robin Lane Fox.
Unlike the Athenians where one of the partners was an adult and the other often a teenager or younger man, Macedonians were noted for being adult men being in relationships.
There were also several examples of soldiers who had boyfriends.

The Sparatans also viewed their wives as basically just for babies.

One of the Roman Emperors, Hadrian, publicly had a young male lover Antinous. Antinous was worshiped as a God and was one of the most popular cults in the Roman Empire.

Julius Caesar's own troops even used to sing a marching song which alluded to a sexual relationship with a King of another land.
Mark Anthony was also in a homosexual relationship.

Many of the more educated people at the time were also smart enough to see that their religious cults served more as parables and stories which served as part of their tradition and did not take them literally.
Unlike those today who blindly follow their sects.

Today's negative views of homosexuality come from the concept of 'sin' that was established by the monotheistic cults.
The same people that prefer to regard the world from the superstitious viewpoint of invisible mystical forces and who claim humanity and the world is 6000 years old.

With regards to genetics......the ancient world seems to imply that it is maybe a bit more complicated than that.

Sigmund Freud claims all humans are bisexual and I think he is correct.

Deleted due to double post

reply to post by Dante2117


You do have a good point. Even in the Bible itself we see the relationships between David and Saul, Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the Centurion whose partner was healed by Christ himself....

It is, indeed, a result of bigoted groups of people glazing over what was actually written and what actually took place to fit their own agenda. Christianity, as set forth by Christ, doesn't have an issue with homosexualtiy. It's modern self proclaimed followers of Christianity that have the problem. They have distorted a beautiful religion into something ugly and full of hatred. They should be ashamed of themselves and will definitely answer to God for the perversion they have made of his directives.

Originally posted by robobbob
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I am a conservative and know full well that there is a genetic component. I also know that environmental factors can cause the activation or silencing of genes. I would suspect that homosexuality would be a recessive trait (or humanity would have vanished eons ago) that typically wouldn't express itself.

And yet, it has expressed itself since the beginning of man all across the planet; and also has expressed itself in virtually all animal species. And yet, we are all still here on this planet.

I look forward to the day when we feel about homosexuality the same way we feel about other recessive traits that have been around forever -- like left-handed people, or red-headed people. They are a minority of the population, and cause no harm.

So I really don't understand what your point is other than to take a cheap shot at claiming conservatives are scientifically retarded because most do not believe in providing environmental support to what would be a self limiting recessive gene failure, and are against encouraging recessive gene expression.

Homosexuals CAN procreate. They have all the necessary equipment. Many homosexuals HAVE procreated.

But what about priests? Do conservatives want to do away with priests? They flat-out refuse to procreate, so what if everyone decides to become a priest? It would be the end of civilization. I don't think we should take any chances - should we just ban the priesthood altogether? What about the other heterosexuals who just decide they don't want to procreate? What if one day, everyone decides not to procreate anymore? Heterosexuals can decide not to procreate just as easily as homosexuals. Do you see how silly it is to worry about a minority of the population who may or may not decide to procreate?

My point, by the way, was to reply to the OP's ridiculous accusation that liberals hate/deny genetics. To use your words, he was "poking a stick".

For poking a stick at conservatives, I have a question for you. It is now easy to select children on numerous things with sex or eye color being quite popular. Once the genes on sexual orientation are identified and treatment is made available, ie RvsW, where will you stand then? which of your dogmas will you throw over the side?

Do you mean treatment after the individual becomes an adult and realizes they are homosexual? I think it should be left up to the individual to decide on whether they want treatment or not. Then it truly does become a choice. And I don't think any individual should be condemned for whatever choice they make. If you mean the treatment can only happen while a child is still in the mother's womb, then I would be against it. And I would never change the sex or eye color of my baby. I would love them no matter what their sex or eye color (or sexual orientation) was. Did that adequately answer your question?

Originally posted by Wotaneyed

For one, that old argument of equality could no longer be used for unequal treatment.

I think you're confusing the concept of equal treatment before the law with equal capability. No one's arguing that there are no differences between people. If anything, the argument being put forth is that the differences are racially based.

You think significant differences in capabilities between people are based upon their "race"? That's certainly what our OP and resident David Duke fan is proposing.

I'll reformat my earlier question. Let's say for sake of argument that there really are differences, in say intellectual ability for example, between 'races' (using the quote there because personally, I think the very concept of 'race' is a false one. BTW - I don't have an inclination to bring someone else up to speed, if they're not already aware of that concept).

How does that lend itself to dealing with people (that is, INDIVIDUALS) here in the Real World where we all presumably reside?

If the OP is correct about race and genes and all this - I think this solves all of our problems!

For example - no blacks would commit crimes because they have the Voo Doo in the genes. Why should they commit crimes when all the have to do is Voo Doo? Therefor, no black people can possibly be criminals.

Middle Eastern people want to make war on us? Oh no no no - can't be. They have the ability to conjure up Jinns and Genies - why should they need war? All they have to do is rub a magic lamp and get whatever they want! It's in their genes don't you know.

Abortion? Why do we even argue this because clearly genetics show that all women crave and love babies and thus would never have an abortion. There is no such thing as abortion - proven by genetics.

Gays? There are no such things because there is just male and female genes. Why argue over people who cannot possibly even exist?

Illegal Mexican Immigrants? No no, it's just their ancient Indio / Asian genes directing them to head North back over the Bering Strait to Asia where they came from. Simple genetics, see?

Oh and speaking of Asia - no need to worry about them because they got Buddha in their genes and thus are peaceful people.

Wow. Now that we know - we can all stop worrying! Isn't it great?

reply to post by MrDesolate


So you don't believe the concept of race exists...?

What do you base this argument on?

Earlier on someone posted a link of a study conducted by Stanford where they were able to accurately determine a person's race solely on their genomes. It was a blind study where the researchers did not know the races of those who provided the samples.

For instance, they could even differentiate between Chinese and Japanese but with regards to Europeans they could not differentiate between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans as they are the same race.

Anthropologists recognise four general races: Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Australoid.

Population groups from above Northern Africa share a single common ancestor according to their genes while Central African Blacks and Southern Africans Blacks do not.
Europeans also have up to 4% Neanderthal DNA while Asians have a slightly lesser degree.
This means that Neanderthals interbred with Homo Sapiens as they were also a human species.
4 % is a massive amount considering that our DNA is over 98% the same as a chimpanzee's.

This already shows that there are some genetic differences between races.

Originally posted by Dante2117
reply to post by MrDesolate

 

So you don't believe the concept of race exists...?

Whether he believes in race or not, I think (with all due respect) that you might be missing the point. A few posters on this thread seem to have problems with equal opportunity policies, but have implied that society would benefit from state intervention in the form of race-based policies. It'd just be nice to get to the bottom of how we're supposed to embrace these "differences" in practice without restricting individual freedoms.