Racism

Again, implied and inferred. That he meant, directly and unequivocably, 'less intelligent' has been inferred, but he has DIRECTLY said that he never meant genetically inferior, which seems more clear to me.

And even if he did mean it- I very much doubt there is any basis for you saying it is a. baseless b. racist and c. only a hypothesis. About the worst thing that could be said about it... would be that he is wrong. But you cannot go crying foul every time an expert makes a comment upon his field, the consequences of which you do not like.

And he certainly should not be silenced about it.

but assuming the journalist isnt outright misquoting, he did in fact claim genetic inferiority.

"He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade."

It's only racist if his motives for saying it were from a hate of Black people, however it seems it didnt, and it also seems thats not what he meant anyway.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And he certainly should not be silenced about it.

i agree. doesnt change that he has no real ground for such a statement though. he has the right to express what he pleases imho, but at the same time i feel the scientific community should recognise this hypothesis for what it is. baseless and racist

First of all, you are inferring again. He says difference, NOT superiority.

Buit even so- so what?. He may be right. Like I say, he is an expert in that area. If he is right, we have to accept it. If he is wrong we can show so.

What we cannot do is cast him down simply beause we don't like the possible consequences of what he said. The truth is the truth.

Originally posted by Schecter
i agree. doesnt change that he has no real ground for such a statement though. he has the right to express what he pleases imho, but at the same time i feel the scientific community should recognise this hypothesis for what it is. baseless and racist

How is it racist exactly? What evidence do you have that suggests he doesn't like black people?

Originally posted by Schecter
i agree. doesnt change that he has no real ground for such a statement though. he has the right to express what he pleases imho, but at the same time i feel the scientific community should recognise this hypothesis for what it is. baseless and racist

I very much feel you are making those accusations from personal and emotional grounds, not rational ones.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
It's only racist if his motives for saying it were from a hate of Black people, however it seems it didnt, and it also seems thats not what he meant anyway.

i disagree. if it has no evidence to support it and yet it smears a particular ethnic group, clumsily attempting to label them as genetically less intelligent or inferior in any way, i think the hypothesis is racist.

dont believe all that PSA crap, where all racists are rabid hateful toothless rednecks. some are very intelligent people who get a really stupid thought trapped in their head.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I very much feel you are making those accusations from personal and emotional grounds, not rational ones.

i can assure you that you're mistaken. i find it silly in fact. what im saying is that for a scientist to attempt to push such a hypothesis with absolutely no ground to stand it on is an act worthy or ridicule in his community. you dont just drop a revolutionary idea like that without evidence. thats idiotic.

Well it probavbly WOULd be racist if he said it woithout evidence simply because he feels they are inferior, presumably for non-scoentific reasons.

But you are only assuming that is the case, for no reason I can see. Watson is a hardocre scientist, all the way. His loyalty to scientific principle is absolute. If he thinks something is so, then he thinks so for what he feels is good scientific reason, and nothing else.

Either fight that reason- rationally- or do not, but we cannot simply say "He is racist and wrong." and leave it at that. That's the approach of the Dark Ages reborn to the modern day.

Originally posted by Schecter
i can assure you that you're mistaken. i find it silly in fact. what im saying is that for a scientist to attempt to push such a hypothesis with absolutely no ground to stand it on is an act worthy or ridicule in his community. you dont just drop a revolutionary idea like that without evidence. thats idiotic.

Once more, I feel you are simply asusming he has said this randomly and without evidence. And I feel you are assuming that due to personal and irrational reasons.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Once more, I feel you are simply asusming he has said this randomly and without evidence. And I feel you are assuming that due to personal and irrational reasons.

well, again, you are mistaken. i base my assumptions on what i read in the article, so again you can stop accusing me of kneejerk flailing. thanks.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, there is implied and there is inferred. What he was saying and what people thought he was saying may well be different things. His comment about employees certainly suggested he may have meant less intelligent, though the only terminology he has ever directly used is 'different' rather than 'less'.

Regardless, hs is eminent, qualified and successful enough of an expert in his field that his comments always deserve consideration and I would certainly be interested to know about the evidence underpinning it.

However this seems to be very hard to find. Unfortunately this thread has assumed he meant IQ testing, which then diverted into an entirely pointless discussion o the value of IQ tests which was a waste of time as, as far as can be made out, I cannot see any reason to think they are relevant at all to what is being talked about.

But the heart of the matter is this- Watson, an expert on things genetic, thinks that 'intelligence' (a complicated area) will be demonstrated to be directly influenced by genetic factors within the decade, and that these factors will have a direct relation, due to the evolutionary process, with skin colour. Right or wrong, he certainly has the nous in that area to pronounce upon it and comment upon how things may be if this very much is so. And it is certainly something to consider- what if it IS true that average intelligence can depend on such factors? IF it is true, there's no point running away from it. If it is nonsense, let us show it to be so.

There is a lot of expert testimony to the contrary, of course, and this can be thrown back at him. But there is no point knocking IQ tests when we don't know if that is the issue or talking about cultural factors with black people which also is not the issue.

So basically this all comes down to "I have an idea.". Fair enough, he'll prove it or he won't.

Either way, he's pushing a radical idea with, not so much zero evidence, but not enough to make such claims, it seems.

If he proved it to be fact, I'd accept it, cos you can't deny fact.

When the situation is more clear and there is more confirmation on what he said and what has been proposed, it'll be easier to form opinions I think.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If he proved it to be fact, I'd accept it, cos you can't deny fact.

if he so much as presented a shred of evidence to suggest that its worthy of further research, i would be game. thats all i ask for. evidence. i fail to see how this makes me dramatic and irrational.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
?

How is that showing anyone that I hate White people?

When coupled with every other racist remark, unfair generalization and irrational conclusion you've reached in every thread where race has been a topic, it's apparent.

Practically every thread that involves race, you've come into it and thrown out some bullshit about "ALL WHITE PEOPLE", and then spent the next 10 pages saying you didn't say it.

Anyone who says that the majority of another race hates them is using it as a way of justifying their disdain for that race, to themselves. Far be it from me to speak for your opinion, though; you post history does that very clearly.

You also have a really shallow outlook. It's like you think you're the only person in the world that has experienced hate on a subway. It's okay to take it personally, that's how it's often meant. But get over yourself. It's not like you're the only person in the world that's been called a name.

Can we get a universal definition of racism please...I always thought it had to be inspired by hate but apparently unintentionally causing offense is all you need to do to be racist...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Can we get a universal definition of racism please...I always thought it had to be inspired by hate but apparently unintentionally causing offense is all you need to do to be racist...

racism is rooted in hatred, fear, and ignorance, but not necessarily in all....imho

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Can we get a universal definition of racism please...I always thought it had to be inspired by hate but apparently unintentionally causing offense is all you need to do to be racist...

I guess we need a universal definition of unintentional, too.

Originally posted by Devil King
I guess we need a universal definition of unintentional, too.

Doing something by accident, for example, going to a native South American tribe and unintentionally walking on sacred ground causing great offense.

Really, unintentional is doing something you weren't aware you were doing.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Doing something by accident, for example, going to a native South American tribe and unintentionally walking on sacred ground causing great offense.

Really, unintentional is doing something you weren't aware you were doing.

In that case, I have no problem calling FistsoftheNorth a racist.