The issue of 'race'

Established. Eugenics=false.

But, what if we defined race as a cultural division?

Within larger countries, there are several distinct cultures. Cascadia, Quebec, Scotland, New England, etcetera. Regardless of the genetic makeup of each of these (all of which are diversifying as we speak), they all make for a distinct worldview and should be considered differently.

As a result, would societies modify their behaviour in reference to these phantom cultures? Or, do we cling to the genetic definition because it is simply easier to identify?

No, because then we could just use the word 'nationality'. And then classical differences of races like skin color won't cont anymore. Under that, black africans and black americans will be considered different aces, which will only get confusing. Also, this isn't just about Eugenics, this is about all stereotypes, and all people who think that we as humans are so different from each other in any way.



And not everyone within those countries all agree on 'worldviews' and what is important in their cultures. So that also becomes absurd and silly.



I don't think changing it to nationalities would be in any way useful. And I don't think it would even provide any distinct lines if we made the attempt either.

[color=#2e1a6b]That... doesn't make any sense. I thought you of all people would strive to be as logical as possible.

Can you please give a more detailed explanation

Very simple:

Correlation does not equate to causation.

Saying that statistically, black people do something, does not mean that there's anything about being black that is the causation, or that you can accurately determine how a black person will act from that statistic.

There are other factors involved in all these statistics. You know what has a statistically strong correlation? Young children who sleep with the light on and developing myopia later in life. Quinn GE, Shin CH, Maguire MG, Stone RA (May 1999). "Myopia and ambient lighting at night". Nature 399 (6732): 113–4. doi:10.1038/20094. PMID 10335839 However this doesn't mean that sleeping with a light on at youth causes myopia, or that you can predict that doing so will lead into it. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nitelite.htm

To imply otherwise is what's known as a logical fallacy by the name of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, latin for "With this, therefore because of this".

[color=#2e1a6b]I don't claim to know the cause, nor do I need to

If there's a haunted house that has 10,000 people enter each year, and 5,000 of those people die while inside, I can enter it and correctly assume that I have a 50% chance of dying. I have no idea what causes all these deaths, but despite this, I know that half the people that enter the house will die. As a result, I'm afraid of this house and won't enter it.

If there's a race that commits 6 X more murders than my own race, I can correctly assume that this race is 6 X more likely to commit a murder. I have no idea what causes this race to commit more crimes than other races, but despite this, I know that this race commits 6 X more murders than my own race. As a result, I'm a little concerned to be around them at first



[color=#2e1a6b]All this shows is that the statistics from 1999 were inaccurate.

Well if you're saying black people are likely to commit crimes based on a statistic that says there's a correlation between black people and committing crimes, then you ARE proposing a cause. You're saying, "Oh, he's black, which means it's probable he committed a crime." When in reality it could be something completely different. Perhaps it's a socio-economic thing, so it's not that they're black that has anything to do with it, but that they're poor, or come from a poor place. So you would in fact be inaccurate to say, "Black people are more likely to commit crimes" instead you should say, "People in poor areas are more likely to commit crimes."

When you claim that black people are more likely to commit crimes based on a statistic, whether you acknowledge it or not you're purporting that being black is the problem, at the very least implicitly, and that'd be a fallacy.



Not necessarily. Because what if the cause of this is people who are overly scared and thusly have heart complications because of an expectation of 'spookiness'. If you went in without heart problems or without being convinced you'll see anything then you could easily say it's actually FAR more likely that NOTHING will happen to you.



You don't know that half the people that enter it WILL die. You know that people do die when they enter it. Again, if you don't know the cause, you can't say that anyone who goes in will or will not die, even if the statistics were 70 or 80% of people.



No, you cannot. You can only conclude that there is something about their circumstances that cause them to commit crimes.



You haven't presented a reason to be afraid of someone of that race though through a statistical correlation. Again, you're simply falling prey to the fallacy. You can't say, "These people are more likely to do X." because of statistical correlation. You can't. Listen to me when I say this: YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THAT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY.



[color=#2e1a6b]All this shows is that the statistics from 1999 were inaccurate.[/quote]

No, it doesn't. The statistics were correct. The problem was that the statistics were meant to imply that night lights caused myopia, when in fact there was NOTHING to suggest this, aside from high statistical correlation.

I swear I didn't -rep you

BigLundi wrote...

Lelouch24 wrote...

[color=#2e1a6b]I don't claim to know the cause, nor do I need to

Well if you're saying black people are likely to commit crimes based on a statistic that says there's a correlation between black people and committing crimes, then you ARE proposing a cause. You're saying, "Oh, he's black, which means it's probable he committed a crime." When in reality it could be something completely different. Perhaps it's a socio-economic thing, so it's not that they're black that has anything to do with it, but that they're poor, or come from a poor place. So you would in fact be inaccurate to say, "Black people are more likely to commit crimes" instead you should say, "People in poor areas are more likely to commit crimes."

When you claim that black people are more likely to commit crimes based on a statistic, whether you acknowledge it or not you're purporting that being black is the problem, at the very least implicitly, and that'd be a fallacy.

[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not saying that being black is the cause. All I'm saying is that there is a correlation with being Black and committing crimes. I'm not proposing a cause, in fact, I'll just go by the cause you suggested

"it's not that they're black that has anything to do with it, but that they're poor, or come from a poor place"

[color=#2e1a6b]Let's imagine that this is the real cause. Does this disprove the correlation of blacks committing crimes? NO! It explains the cause of the correlation of blacks committing crimes, but the result is still that blacks commit more crimes.



[color=#2e1a6b]hmm... so you're saying...

A race commits more murders ≠ race is more likely to commit murders

A race commits more murders = there is something about their circumstances that causes them to commit crimes.

We're gonna have to disagree on this one


[color=#2e1a6b]Your saying that an unknown causation disproves an evidence-supported correlation. I don't think "unknown causation disproves correlation" is a logical fallacy



[color=#2e1a6b]I meant to say that the statistics from 1999 were a coincidence.