...only the qualification that all humans being afforded "rights" would be preferable to the alternative.
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
But being raciest about anything science like, plays 2ND fiddle. It's way more important for the claim to be the truth. Science.
Are Companies that make ( BANDAIDS ) raciest?
(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) "filled with hate based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation seeking to maximize profits at all costs is not "filled with hate based on skin-tone" and is (THERFORE) NOT "raciest" ("active-racism").HOwEveR,(IFF) "raciest" means someone (or something) that "implicitly and unintentionally shows preferential treatment based on skin-tone" (THEN) a psychopathic corporation (or government or other system or organization) that neglects to consider (and mitigate) whether or not their products and or services disproportionately help people of certain skin-tones over people of other skin-tones is (THEREFORE) "raciest" ("passive-racism").
9 days later
I would say that at the very least he is misunderstanding why IQ tests are on average higher for some demographics than others (social disadvantage due to systemic racism and the resulting gap in education resources seems at least as likely an explanation as genetics) and also that he is placing too much importance on the tests in general. I am still not prepared to personally call him racist just incorrect.
The Gene's which control melatonin levels are unconnected with those that control intelligence and in America at least there has been interbreeding between all demographics such that the genetics that effect one demographic would effect all demographics.
The reality is, if a scientist presents a theory that causes racial offense, whoever the voice for the scientific community has to take political action. The accusers are not basingtheir accusation on science, but on political correctness.YES. AND "THE LAW" IS CODIFIED MOB RULE.What is your prescription?(IFF) it is "illegal" to fire someone for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) (THEN) it should also be "illegal" to fire someone for their (other) "idiotic" beliefs.But this DOUBLE-EDGED-SWORD cuts both ways.(IFF) you CAN fire someone for their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) (THEN) you CAN fire someone for their (other) "idiotic" beliefs.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
But to be more clear, whatever error the doctor was in is not relevant to the issue of political pressure, and it's obvious compromise.
18 days later
I'm not sure what the "obvious compromise" is the real issue is not so much any error or even this one scientist's opinion or racism but rather the possibility that some racist(s) might take these flawed conclusions and use them to justify some unjust prejudice. Beliefs inform actions.
The compromise is the conclusion that Watson's hypothesis is based on personal racism.How do you/they know he wasn't sincere, no matter how off he was, about his hypothesis?
Irrelevant to the situation if he is doing harm. The most basic goal of a punishment is to change behavior. If his behavior (or hypothesis) causes harm and being ostracized prevents or works against that harm then it is hard to argue against the punishment.
Well what is the purpose of his hypothesis being disavowed and other scientists dismissing it as racist drivel? Is the purpose only to hurt the man or is it an attempt to limit the damage his hypothesis could potentially do to minorities?
36 days later
