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: neolib who wrote (96758)	1/25/2005 5:08:18 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793711

I listed that because it is the starting point (often unstated or even unrealized) for the vast majority of people. And I didn't dispute it's popularity. What I did was suggest that that was not the most valid or constructive approach. You seem to want to validate it because it's common, therefore normal. I want to invalidate it because it is inaccurate and backwards and non-constructive. The history of our species is one of struggling to lengthen the vector of morality, if I may use that metaphor. However, most people seem to accomplish this be shortening the perceived vector of genetic distance to those they feel they should treat better. That's an impressive framing of the issue. Articulate. Tight. But I'm not buying the second half. At least I don't think I am. Your framing suggests that the shortening of the genetic distance vector is somehow bogus. It's not bogus if the perceived distance is a matter of faulty perception rather than a matter of denial. I see no reason to deny that real differences do exist. So it still comes down to whether there are real differences or not. Our backgrounds and attitudes are not very different. Yet you see differences and I don't. I did list one, regarding sports. What is your opinion on that? That old chestnut? Is that the best you can do? <g> I'm a basketball fan. Did you notice how the complexion of the NBA changed once the top players from Europe started playing? It adds weight to the nurture side of the scale. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the most elite athletes are disproportionately black, so what? You're right. I wouldn't call that significant. It matters in the Olympic arenas. It doesn't matter a bit on the factory floor or in church or the cubicle or at the back yard BBQ. You could make an argument just as compelling if not more so to differentiating humanity by handedness or introversion/extroversion. I don't think that any of them warrants general differentiation. The differences just aren't significant except in limited circumstances. If something is genetically similar, it must be treated with moral respect. I think you would get more traction with this argument if you treated all humans as genetic equals and focused on extending morality to animals. As is, you get bogged down in the first step so you lose your opportunity to make a pitch for animals. It's both unnecessary and counterproductive, IMO.