Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (96722)	1/25/2005 1:13:39 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

Perhaps it would help the discussion if you identified some ways in which racial groups are meaningfully different Well, I suspect that anything I list as an example will prompt you to say "not meaningful", and how can I argue with that? Seems to me that the most direct way to deal with this is to not imagine differences where there are no differences. Then whatever differences actually exist will be fewer or none, which obviates the excuse for worse treatment. I see you has having the cart before the horse, and I suspect you see me the same way. But my approach has the merit of working across a much broader swath of biology then your approach does. Thats one of the important tests of scientific theories. Are they general or very specific? Hence I suspect I'm correct, and you are not. Let me give you an example: I have a farm with an irrigation system that has manual valves below ground level (in plastic containment boxes). The containment boxes collect debris and form a shelter for small organisms (especially through the winter). In one of these, a black widow spider has lived for 3 or 4 years (well, I don't know if it is the same one, there are offspring). When I go to turn that valve on or off I do one of two things: 1) wear gloves, or 2) look around carefully to locate the spider before sticking my bare hand in. My mental processes are quite straightforward. 1) The spider is very different from me. 2) I try treating other things morally (realizing full well that my existence does impact a great number of things negatively, as does the existence of most living things). 3) I exercise appropriate caution for the dangers I face, while trying to implement 2). Most people I know would use different logic: 1) The spider is very different from me. 2) I should kill it. Or 1) The spider is very different from me. 2) It is an inconvenience at best, a mortal danger at worst. 3) I should kill it. Or 1) The spider may or may not be different from me. 2) I must determine which it is so I know what to do with the spider, since my actions toward the spider hinge on classification. 3) perhaps I should move the spider out of my way, to some place the spider is safe and I am not inconvenienced in the future. Or 1) The spider and I are nearly cousins. 2)We have the same Gaia(?? I'm out of my depth here, don't know if this makes sense to any one). 3) The spider and I will commune together daily. <vbg> Hope this clarifies my position. I understand yours very well indeed. It is the dominant position with regards to morality. I happen to think its a very poor one, but that is just MHO. I dislike denial as a foundation for anything.