Christianity

[Harbal]

He didn't.

Very wise, henry, just forget it ever happened, and move on.

[henry quirk]

He didn't.

Very wise, henry, just forget it ever happened, and move on.

Him, callin' you vacuous? Why would I forget a fact?

Him, lumpin' me in with folks like yourself? I forgive, but do not forget.

[Lacewing]

He didn't.

Very wise, henry, just forget it ever happened, and move on.

I love you, Harbal. You bring so much clarity to this forum!

[Harbal]

I forgive, but do not forget.

Even so, you should write it down somewhere, just in case.

[iambiguous]

Okay, that's one frame of mind, of course. What's crucial here however is the extent to which others insist it's a manifestation of human biology. Such that other races are said to be "naturally"/"genetically" inferior.

AJ wrote: My review of the evidence, or of the arguments, points to some IQ differences between the large racial groups. So according to those studies the East Asians have a slightly higher average IQ than, say, the average European. They also say that on average the *sub-saharan Africans* have an even lower one than the Europeans.

Iambiguous: How much lower? Enough, say, to prompt you to suggest that it is best that white women avoid becoming pregnant through intercourse with black or brown men? Enough to suggest that schools ought to be segregated? Enough to suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to reject affirmative action in the workplace because blacks are "naturally" inferior to whites given jobs that required a greater intelligence?

Why does the exact number matter to you? I report to you that when those interested in this issue (Arthur Jenson is one) conduct their studies they conclude an average that is lower. So what? If some group is higher (some Asians and Ashekenazi Jews) does it seem illogical or simply unfair that some communities have lesser IQs?

Who it matters to are the black, brown and red folks living in a community in which political power was in the hands of those like you and Shockley and Jenson. In regard to miscegenation, education and jobs.

And the fact that while you have your racist science, others on the other end of the political spectrum have their own, anti-racist science debunking yours.

If the white women did not become pregnant through intercourse -- what other means do you propose? Artificial insemination by the State?

How do you feel about interracial copulation, marriage, pregnancies, births? If you were in power would you outlaw them...or just suggest they should be discouraged, or simply allow others to choose for themselves?

No wiggling here, okay?

My own opinion, based to some degree on aesthetics, is that European women make a better choice when they choose a mate from among their own *racial stock*. But I say the same about Africans, Japanese, Chinese.

Back to that. Race matters. Whites are intellectually superior and should avoid mating with inferior stocks. On the other hand, all the other races can choose to mate among their own stock in turn.

When you ask about segregated schools you are I gather referring to US schools? And to the forced integration (by the federal government) of schools in the South? My research has indicated that it would have been better for African Americans to take charge of their own education. I am not certain if forced integration has been a benefit for African Americans.

Right, back to the separate but equal education. The Booker T. Washington approach to black education. Better still the Marcus Garvey approach...back to Africa?

On the other hand, though black children would receive an "equal" education among their own kind -- in theory -- they are still no less inferior to whites, right? So, they graduate but it is still reasonable to deny them the best jobs given that they are naturally less intelligent. And it is still reasonable to eschew mixed race sexual relationships between white women and the inferior stock because that results in babies that are necessarily less intelligent than those produced by men and women of the Northern European stock.

You keep attempting to mire me within the moral questions which, as someone without any morality and for whom morality is a situational issue based on what you refer to as 'dasein', you cannot really have any position on. Yet you seem to have a position or 'feelings' in any case.

Yes, my own frame of mind here is embedded in the gap between what, existentially, I have come to believe about race and all that there is to be known about it. My own exploration into the science of race has led me to believe that racism is more a political/historical construct among those who wish to use racism to sustain their own "white skin privilege".

One rendition: https://youtu.be/8X0UmfBwA_U

But, no, I can't prove this beyond all doubt. I am not an objectivist myself here. Instead, I would argue that an assessment such as this...

It is certainly the better choice to reject affirmative action completely. For a number of reasons. One is that the State should never be given the power that it has been given. Two is that it leads to questionable benefits to Blacks themselves.

...is just another manifestation of dasein. You lived a particular life, were indoctrinated as a child to believe particular things, had experiences and relationships as an adult that predisposed you existentially to embrace racism as a legitimate frame of mind.

Iambiguous: Again, back to what, if you were in power in any particular community, you would embrace in regard to social, political and economy policies in regard to race.

We do not live in communities where one person has power of that sort. You seem to be asking me to place myself in the position of an absolute dictator who could make absolute decisions.

No, I'm noting that, historically, when it come to race, there were those in power who ranged all the way up to someone like Hitler.

Surely, you can imagine yourself being in a position of power [among others who share your frame of mind] and being able to pass legislation relating to race. You'll either go there specifically pertaining to particular contexts and behaviors or you won't.

In the course of my researches (when I was researching these issues) I was drawn to consider the immigration laws of 1924 (The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act). It was restrictive and favored, through percentages, immigrants from nations that had a presence already. And mostly from Northern Europe. In my own opinion this immigration law was a good one, not a bad one, though it was fought against tooth and claw for ideological reasons. The 1930s were extremely contentious ideologically.

Of course it's a good one for you and your ilk! You believe that black, brown and Southern European "stock" are intellectually inferior. Based on your own science of race. Only the lefties were inclined to embrace a mere ideological -- Commie -- perspective.

"Dark chapters", indeed. Dark and evil being synonymous. As for a "ground" between us...that would revolve around your own default assumption that "science" has established that the black, brown and red races are genetically inferior "stock". And, in fact, for other white racists, the yelow race is no less inferior....morally?

As for this...

What I can tell you is that the US is entering into a demographic crisis. Shall I assume that you do not read contemporary titles? When a nation like the US, with a traditional supermajority of European descent, is transformed extremely rapidly into another sort of nation, with another sort of demographic, social conflict arises. Social conflict of this sort has arisen. It is as visible to you as it is to me. You seem to be emotionally involved in moral issues around this. What are those concerns of yours?

....again, what specifically do you think should be done about it? What should the policies of the American government be to stem this demographic crisis? How far would you go? Not as far as Hitler perhaps but more in that direction?

I'm just trying to pin down how existentially you became a racist [re dasein] and how far you would go to create a community, a nation where the intellectually superior "Northern European" white race prevailed?

One context at a time.

Iambiguous: Me? Well, again, I recognize the complexity of the issue. But what I focus more on is not the conflicting arguments themselves so much as the role that dasein plays in predisposing some existentially to become racist, and others not to.

Your use of this glossary term dasein at every juncture leads me to believe that you enjoy fuzzy definitions. I can suggest that you introduce a sentence that defines what it is you mean when you use that word -- but I will not insist.

Okay, how fuzzy is my assessment of dasein given the OPs of these three threads:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Given a particular context.

To say "the role that dasein plays in predisposing some existentially to become racist, and others not to" is evidence of really fuzzy thinking. The language seems to determine whatever your conclusion is.

Okay, how fuzzy was it for Germans after Hitler came to power there? How fuzzy was it for those in any community down through the ages in which race and ethnicity and nationality were championed by those in power?

When you use the word *racism* and *racist* you are resorting to hot terms that have been defined by others. These terms have become to hot to have much use for us.

Come on, you believe that your race is inherently/genetically/biologically superior to the other races. How can that not be construed hotly by them?

So I try to clarify things by saying: any person, in any culture, has a right to define themselves at a somatic level. Just as they can define themselves on all other levels. If they decide that valuing their somatic type is relevant to them, on what basis could I oppose them? Therefore, a Japanese man or woman has my blessing if they choose to produce children from their own stock, following their cultural and ethnic line. It is not *immoral* to do so.

Unbelievable. The black, brown and red stock have your blessing to reproduce among their own stock. Or even among the stock of the other races. Just cease and desist from producing children with your stock? Only other racists include the yellow stock in turn. Those Asian "hordes"? The slant-eyed Chinks, as some prefer?

Then this bullshit:

In rejecting Progressivism, Socialism and Marxian philosophy and praxis, I must work to clarify language and concepts that have become "occupied". I wonder if this makes much sense to you? Despite your use of such loose and flexible terms like dasein and your rejection of a defined moral system, you definitely seem to be Left-Progressive. Thus, according to me, you cannot think straight. And 3/4s of my efforts will then, necessarily, be devoted to disentangling your terms.

Clarify language? Right. What you mean of course is that the language you choose to use is the default language. And only those of the superior race are intellectually capable of grasping this. Of "thinking straight" about it.

All I do is to ask of you what "straight thinking" means given a particular moral and political issue, given a particular context. And what you would do to keep the inferior races from contaminating the master race. Then you pretending that it's not about the master race at all but of the intellectually superior race prevailing across the board.

Thus [to me] it is in grappling with just how far you would go to bring about a community consisting solely of the superior race.

That's the part that is "problematic" to me. How far will those convinced that black and brown people are inherently/biologically inferior to white -- and yellow? -- people go when they are in a position of power.

They are very far from having the 'power' you talk about.

More bullshit. Steering the discussion toward the fact that "here and now" [in America] the superior race is in a "crisis", rather than in discussing how far you would go to stop that....to turn it around.

Then [to me] the biggest bullshit of all:

Then back to how far you would go given particular contexts.

Once again I reveal my position: I am a theorist, not an activist. You seem to want to move me from a theoretical plane to an active one. Why?

Right. As long as your superior Northern European white race is just espoused theoretically here in a world of words, the other races have nothing to fear from you. On the other hand, your racist narrative here is being read by others who have no qualms whatsoever in acting out your, what, philosophical conclusions?

Myself, I resolved the problem very differently in respect to African-Americans. My view is that *White man's culture* is an enormous imposition on a people who did not arrive in it voluntarily. It has all been forced on them. Even when a supposed freedom was granted them even that was just another form of imposition. That is, "OK now you are free. Now you will be expected to 'become white'." There is no point at which the imposition was not operative. The same was true (perhaps to a lesser extend) in European imperial projects.

Iambiguous: Still, the bottom line here [yours] is that however history itself played out, it doesn't make the white race any less superior to the black, brown and red races. Though perhaps "slightly" inferior to the yellow race.

You will have to clearly define your views on *superiority*. What do you mean by that?

More to the point, for all practical purposes, in however you define it, the Northern European white race is inherently/genetically/biologically superior to the other races. Whereas from my frame of mind in regard to moral and political value judgments, "inferior" and "superior" are rooted existentially out in particular worlds understood in particular ways historically, culturally and experientially. And that race has little or nothing to do with these conflicts. Or, rather, according to many scientists, it ought not to have anything to do with it.

With me, however, "I" am more drawn and quartered. I truly don't know where to draw the line between nature and nurture in regard to things like race or gender or ethnicity. Are there white genes and black genes and red genes and brown genes and yellow genes and mixed-race genes? Is there a definitive assessment here? Maybe. Or, instead, will those embracing particular political prejudices here tend towards one set of "scientific proofs" rather than another?

And given that this is a thread revolving around Christianity, one has to take into account the narratives that many Christians embrace in regard to race. Christians rationalizing slavery for example.

I doubt you will find, except among very fringe Christian groups, very much racialist concern at all. But there are some in the Protestant camp who define 'kinism' and in the Catholic camp there are some with ethnic/racialist (and religious) concerns.

Exactly. Dasein in either a God or in a No God world. In any event, where does God and religion fit into all of this for you. Is there a "transcending font" that you fall back on to "settle" the debate about race?

Where's the objective science rather than the hopelessly subjective political prejudices rooted in dasein to back that up?

Well, I will admit that something like *objective science* does exist but it is especially proficient in non-contentious areas. When certain studies about IQ have been published (see Roger Pearson and Arthur R. Jenson for examples) they are met with fierce resistance. Is the resistance *science based* or is it based on feeling and sentiment? My impression has been that of feeling and sentiment. That it is 'wrong' to have any idea except the politically correct one.

Imabiguous: Right. And you would insist there actually is a politically correct frame of mind here. One that revolves around the belief that the white race is superior to black, brown and red races. Why? Because that conclusion is based on the scientifically correct assumptions of those like Shockley.

Shockley asserted he was correct within a limited area. But beyond that he did not make recommendations.

This Shockley...

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adf8117

...or another Shockley?

It appears that she [Coulter] might be [racist]. And what does it mean to be assimilated? Give us some specific examples of what it means [to you] to be in sync with the occidental -- white? -- culture. In terms of what?

Again, you need to work through your terms. Your use of the term racist is purposed to be condemnatory. Anyone with a preference for their own culture and 'somatic heritage' is a racist according to your usage. What ideological assertions and predicates stand behind this? Are you sure that you are aware? Have you thought these things through?

No, I suspect that politically the word racist would seem appropriate when those like you argue that their race is intellectually superior to the other races. After all, if that can be backed up scientifically then it is perfectly reasonable to pursue social, political and economic policies that reflect this "objective truth", right?

Google, Wiki -- these are completely contaminated. Don't you know this? They construct algorhythms to produce specific results and not others.

Imabiguous: Sure they are. That is, unless the articles and the links are in sync with your own political prejudices. Come on, left or right, hypocrisy will always be around, one suspects.

No, there is actually a way to describe things fairly, accurately and better. And what works against that is the intrusion of ideological positions. Especially this is so when Progressive and Egalitarian ideology are operative.

More insular bullshit. What you mean is that to the extent that others "fairly, accurately and for the better" think about race as you do, they are being fair...rather than "ideological". However, when others speak out against linking race with intelligence, they are being "politically correct". The "woke" crowd. But when you and your ilk argue that Northern European white folks really are intellectually superior, well, that's objective science.

[Harbal]

I love you, Harbal. You bring so much clarity to this forum!

Well we are birds of a feather.

[Dontaskme]

He didn't.

Very wise, henry, just forget it ever happened, and move on.

I love you, Harbal. You bring so much clarity to this forum!

Lol…he’s irresistibly adorable isn’t he?

[Harbal]

How do you feel about interracial copulation,

I recon he would jump at the chance, he displays the symptoms of a man who hasn't seen any action in a long time.

[Harbal]

Lol…he’s irresistibly adorable isn’t he?

Come here, cuddles.

[Dontaskme]

Lol…he’s irresistibly adorable isn’t he?

Come here, cuddles.

I’m coming cuddles, I’m coming.

[henry quirk]

I love you, Harbal. You bring so much clarity to this forum!

Well we are birds of a feather.

You got that right.

[Harbal]

You got that right.

It's only news when I get it wrong, henry.

[henry quirk]

You got that right.

It's only news when I get it wrong, henry.

Nah, that ain't news: that's just par for the course.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That I am my own (my life, liberty, property are mine). That you are your own (your life, liberty, property are yours), That I am a free will. That you are a free will. That God is real. That morality is real.

Question: is that true in Nature, in the world? Or is it true in the world of men exclusively?

[Alexis Jacobi]

As I say: I don't agree with AJ on some fundamentals or assessments, but vacuous man is right on target.

Ufff. That's gonna leave a mark. And that was just a left.