But genetic "differences" is quite literally the route chosen by actual racist scientists who believed these differences were the cause of differing social/economic outcomes - and I feel that's what F1Tyrant is alluding to. While you might not be claiming one is better than the other due to the differences, there are people who use these differences (real or imagined) to claim that exact thing.DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 amI didn't *mean* anything - it was a question. You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different". Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different. I've got 2 boys. One likes rap the other likes punk, one likes fishing, the other thinks its' cruel. One is shy and aloof, the other super-confident. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't spend time looking into why one doesn't like certain things when the other does.F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 10:08 amAn answer that confirms the prejudices of racists, you mean. Doesn't stop the race realists and human biodiversity crowd from already claiming certain ethnicities have low IQs and are "lazy" from warping the already available data.
You do realise that a lot of pre-1840s science tried to justify slavery and the pre-1940s science tried to justify the unequal outcomes between the races. Most of it has been debunked.
Let's just say it's unlikely that rigorous scienctific investigation is going to discover something where literally racist scientists failed in the last 200 years.
I was hesitant about posting in this thread as it's not why I come on this forum even though the topic interests me a great deal. So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher
And no - he's not even close, let alone being better