Oh no!!!! not another racism thread

Macmorris

Wibbs wrote:

In any event they don't take into account imagination, the ability to enter altered states of consciousness or perseverance. All of which would make a huge difference to the productivity of a person/race.

I accept that, but that's where the concept of 'g' comes in, the general factor that is common across all intelligence tests.

The simplist definition I would give for intelligence would be merely the ability to solve problems. The better people are at using their judgment to solve problems, especially when they're competing for resources, the more 'intelligent' they are. I think we should look at intelligence from an evolutionary perspective, about why it developed in the first place.

It's possible that DaVinci might have had quite an average tested IQ and still be a "genius".

I think that would be very unlikely. Although there are examples of 'idiot savants' who are otherwise intellectually retarded but who have some one ability (e.g. that film Rain Man) that makes them seem like geniuses, in general that kind of thing is very rare. Most geniuses are people with exceptionally high intelligence. Although there are plenty of high-IQ people who never distinguish themselves, the people who do make a difference in things like science nearly always tend to have IQs.

So while IQ may not be an exact measure of high intelligence, it is a fairly good approximation to something that we would consider intelligent. Nobody would have a problem with calling Nobel-prize winning physicists intelligent, for example, but as far as I know, most Nobel-prize winning physicists have above average IQs. I remember reading once about how surprised physicists were when they found out that the Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman had an IQ of only 120. Even though 120 is relatively high compared with most of the population, the fact that it was considered low just shows how high the average is for physicists.

The point I'm making is that high IQ does seem to correlate with achievements that most people consider to be signs of high intelligence and therefore there might be some validity to using IQ as a test of intelligence.

While I do agree there seem to be racial differences with regard to IQ, but as you say it can lead to more sinister agendas.

I don't think it should ever be used as a justification for discriminating against people within a country, but at the same time I don't think there is anything wrong with asking what will be the result of mass immigration from countries where the average IQ is low compared with ours. Considering how low-IQ does seem to correlate with anti-social behaviour such as crime, might it not be prudent to restrict immigration from those low-IQ countries in particular?

Wibbs

Macmorris wrote:

I don't think it should ever be used as a justification for discriminating against people within a country, but at the same time I don't think there is anything wrong with asking what will be the result of mass immigration from countries where the average IQ is low compared with ours. Considering how low-IQ does seem to correlate with anti-social behaviour such as crime, might it not be prudent to restrict immigration from those low-IQ countries in particular?

A few problems with that. For a start the Irish are considered by some to have among the lowest IQ in Europe(I'll dig up a link when I've time). Where does that leave us? Are we, as once thought, ignorant apes with a pig under each arm?NO culchie jokes pleease ) Did we just get lucky because of EU/American investment? Should this bar us from travelling and living in countries with a higher IQ? I'm sure you would have issues with that idea.

In any event surely it would be prudent to have an immigration policy based on individual merit and not race?

Macmorris

Wibbs wrote:

A few problems with that. For a start the Irish are considered by some to have among the lowest IQ in Europe(I'll dig up a link when I've time).

That's correct, the average IQ for the catholic Irish is just 93, well below most EU countries.

Did we just get lucky because of EU/American investment?

As much as I would love to believe otherwise, I would have to answer yes to that.

Should this bar us from travelling and living in countries with a higher IQ? I'm sure you would have issues with that idea.

First of all, I don't believe that we should be selective in deciding what immigrants to let into the country. I would prefer if we had no foreigners coming to live here at all. The Chinese have higher IQs than us but that doesn't mean I would be any happier to see hundreds of thousands of Chinese coming to live here. I was just making the point that immigration from low-IQ countries is particularly problematic because of the additional social problems that are likely to be caused by it.

I know I'm avoiding answering your question, but I'm just not really all that bothered by how high or low an immigrant's IQ is. I'm more bothered by how closely related genetically they are to the natives in this country and what effect their presence here will have on our way of life. If it was a choice between ten thousand low-IQ elderly Irish labourers coming back from England and ten thousand high-IQ Chinese immigrants, I would choose the low-IQ group.

In any event surely it would be prudent to have an immigration policy based on individual merit and not race?

If Ireland was nothing more than a multinational corporation, I would answer yes to that, but it isn't. Ireland is a nation with a genetic heritage that stretches back 9,000 years. I believe we should try and preserve that heritage for as long as we can and so we should restrict all immigration.

simu

Macmorris wrote:

If Ireland was nothing more than a multinational corporation, I would answer yes to that, but it isn't. Ireland is a nation with a genetic heritage that stretches back 9,000 years. I believe we should try and preserve that heritage for as long as we can and so we should restrict all immigration.

Neh? That makes no sense! It's not like humans on this island were isolated from the rest of the world for 9 millenia. We're not some rare species of bird ffs!

Macmorris

simu wrote:

We're not some rare species of bird ffs!

No, we're not some rare species of bird. We're far more important than a rare species of bird. We're a unique ethnic group and we should be allowed protect our way of life and shape our own destiny, in the same way as the non-white ethnic groups like the Australian Aborigines or the Inuit people or the San people of the Kalahari should be allowed to conserve their heritage and determine their own destiny. What if I had said that we should to try to preserve those groups? Would anyone have objected? It seems a bit unfair that once someone demands the same thing for a white ethnic group they're accused of being racist.

It just shows how bad political-correctness has gotten that it seems more acceptable to want to preserve a rare species of bird than it is want to preserve a unique white ethnic group.

simu

Macmorris wrote:

No, we're not some rare species of bird. We're far more important than a rare species of bird. We're a unique ethnic group and we should be allowed protect our way of life and shape our own destiny, in the same way as the non-white ethnic groups like the Australian Aborigines or the Inuit people or the San people of the Kalahari should be allowed to conserve their heritage and determine their own destiny. What if I had said that we should to try to preserve those groups? Would anyone have objected? It seems a bit unfair that once someone demands the same thing for a white ethnic group they're accused of being racist.

It just shows how bad political-correctness has gotten that it seems more acceptable to want to preserve a rare species of bird than it is want to preserve a unique white ethnic group.

Dude - all these groups should protect their culture but that's not the same thing as restricting breeding to people within certain groups! Culture is something that's passed on by learning, not by genes.

You still haven't expalined what you mean by our "9000 year old genetic heritage" anyway - do you really think there are Irish people there who haven't a single Celtic/Viking/Norman/English/etc ancestor somewhere in the family tree. And if there are, how the hell are you going to recognise them? And if you could, do you propose allowing them to have sex only with people who share some genetic features in common with them rather than whoever they happen to find attractive or fall in love with? Good luck with that!

Wibbs

Macmorris wrote:

That's correct, the average IQ for the catholic Irish is just 93, well below most EU countries. As much as I would love to believe otherwise, I would have to answer yes to that.

Right so we are ignorant savages (with an underarm pig) Then? Especially if you're a Catholic. So if you're protestant you're OK? Well I hail from both sides, so at least I should be glad only one half of me is thick. :rolleyes: Thank God for all the yankee dollars as well.

I would prefer if we had no foreigners coming to live here at all.

The nub of the issue it seems

I was just making the point that immigration from low-IQ countries is particularly problematic because of the additional social problems that are likely to be caused by it.

Given that we're thick to start with, I'd say the more the merrier.

If it was a choice between ten thousand low-IQ elderly Irish labourers coming back from England and ten thousand high-IQ Chinese immigrants, I would choose the low-IQ group.

Really. better to be thick but genetically "pure", I suppose.

Ireland is a nation with a genetic heritage that stretches back 9,000 years.

With an incidence of genetic diseases that is among the highest in Europe. Also that genetic heritage varies quite a bit from east to west in the country. It's not uniform by a long shot. Humans have always mixed their genes. That's what gave us an evolutionary advantage. Do you really want to stop that? Any isolated species is fast in danger of dying out. Humans are inbred enough without adding to the problem.

Wibbs

Bloody hell!! It looks like I'm a liberal. Didn't see that one coming.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Macmorris wrote:

If IQ tests are culturally biased how do you explain the way that Chinese immigrants in America usually perform better on them than native black people? You would think that Chinese people would be at a greater disadvantage than black people, and yet they still manage to outperform not just the blacks but the whites as well.

There is evidence to suggest that IQ actually has Biasis within geographical locations and sub cultures within countries, I wouldnt think of any disadvantages the Chinese other than a differing cultures, morals, ideals, etc.. given the huge social differences between African-American and chinese-cultures and the fact the IQ tests are in my opinion a tardy hand-me-down from a white dominated early 20th century United States

Macmorris wrote:

It's true that natural selection no longer operates in advanced western countries, but that's only been the case in the last few hundred years.

I was referring to any changes in human evolution have been well diluted or wiped and any changes in pyshcological profiling based on race is no where near what it was 1000 years ago even still the change of enviroments on geographical locations should mean the Aborignal tribes of Austrailia should be the strongest, fastest, most adaptable race on the planet (in my opinion... I have such great respect and intrest to their history and culture in one of the most inhospitable but beautiful places on earth)... but to simply say it... we are all the same flesh and blood... the whole scoring system of we did this or we can do this better is not applicable to the fact we all stem from a single reproducing cell... given good education* and good moral standerds* (*subject to applicapable standerds based on culture) any person on this planet can have the same chances as anyone else for becoming the next prodigy....

As for the whole IQ import guidlines... lets just say that I had very high IQ test scores and after doing a lot of psychology research, I feal that I dont match up to it at all, infact I have a few detrimental attributes that cannot be shown on a test paper...

I've worked in 3 different countries and have had plenty of friends from overseas and I find that Ireland has such a huge reputation in other countries for Working hard & Playing hard, for generosity, for friendliness...etc, infact its sometimes a very scary rep to live up to... I lot of it I feel is during our immigration age, where our ancestors rolled the dice on a new life in a new world, that we did so well that it gives us a lot to live up to... from my parents who immigrated did well and came home to start a family.. from my aunt & uncles who have very well overseas... It pisses me right off, when other such families from other countries, rolling thier dice dont get a chance here.. from all the doors that were open to us when life was grim in our country to close it when others need that chance is in my opinion a tragic shame and a shun on our brave ancestors...

A President of Irish descent in the White House... is this not a good thing for America?

Btw MacMorris, forget IQ as your arguements on race profling... its disgusting even to my intelligence

Macmorris

simu wrote:

Dude - all these groups should protect their culture

Including the Irish? Don't you think that the kind of mass immigration that we're now experiencing might be a bit of a threat to our culture in the long-term?

Culture is something that's passed on by learning, not by genes.

But is there anything wrong with wanting our genes to survive as well? Isn't that what the Selfish Gene theory is about? We're psychologically programmed to act in a way that ensures as many of our genes will survive into the future as possible. Immigration is a threat to that because our European genes are recessive to the dominant African and Asian genes.

You still haven't expalined what you mean by our "9000 year old genetic heritage" anyway

According to this, Irish people are almost directly descended from the original settlers who came to this island 9,000 years ago.

Macmorris

Wibbs wrote:

Right so we are ignorant savages (with an underarm pig) Then? Especially if you're a Catholic. So if you're protestant you're OK?

Supposedly, there is as great a difference in intelligence between catholics and protestants in Ireland as there is between black Americans and White Americans.

Given that we're thick to start with, I'd say the more the merrier.

Really. better to be thick but genetically "pure", I suppose.

You seem to be a supporter of eugenics. So am I, but if we want to raise our IQ we would be better off if we focused on improving the quality of our own people instead of bringing in thousands of foreigners and hoping that they'll make up for our deficiencies.

With an incidence of genetic diseases that is among the highest in Europe.

I didn't know that. Are they serious diseases?

Humans have always mixed their genes. That's what gave us an evolutionary advantage.

I'm not so sure about that. Mixing genes isn't good in itself. Sometimes the results of mixing are good, sometimes they're not. If we want an evolutionary advantage we can have a eugenics programme to encourage our more intelligent people to have more children so we'll raise our low IQ and be better able to compete economically with other countries.

Any isolated species is fast in danger of dying out. Humans are inbred enough without adding to the problem.

Anyone who says inbreeding is bad should just take a look at the Icelandics. They seem to be doing alright for themselves and they're probably the most inbred people on the planet.

simu

Macmorris wrote:

Including the Irish? Don't you think that the kind of mass immigration that we're now experiencing might be a bit of a threat to our culture in the long-term?

No tbh.

But is there anything wrong with wanting our genes to survive as well? Isn't that what the Selfish Gene theory is about? We're psychologically programmed to act in a way that ensures as many of our genes will survive into the future as possible. Immigration is a threat to that because our European genes are recessive to the dominant African and Asian genes.

It's a weird idea - I mean we don't even know what genes we carry and even if people were to get tested for this in the future, I don't see why one would base one's identity completely on the genes one happened to carry - genes do more than dictate how you look, ya know.

Anyways, humans are psychologically programmed to propagate their genes - but there's nothing that restricts this to reproducing with people who historically have lived nearby. I mean, really, why do you care if a person's eyes or skin are a bit smaller/bigger or darker/lighter? It's completely irrelevant to me what my descendents look like once they're healthy. You have a rather strange view of white people - seeing us as zooloigcal specimens!

According to this, Irish people are almost directly descended from the original settlers who came to this island 9,000 years ago.

I don't know if that's the full truth. In my own family tree, there are a good few Norman names along the way as well and I 'm not the only one. Maybe I should move "back" to France? o_O

Anyway, going by that article:

The most striking finding was that in Connaught, the westernmost point of Europe, almost all men (98.3%) carry this particular gene. This means that the people of Connaught have been relatively isolated, genetically, from the movements of people that shaped the genetic makeup of the rest of the continent. By comparison, in the east of the country there has been a lot more mixing of genes coming from foreign sources.

Should we be partitioning Connaught off from the rest of the country? o_O

rsynnott

Macmorris wrote:

If we want an evolutionary advantage we can have a eugenics programme to encourage our more intelligent people to have more children so we'll raise our low IQ and be better able to compete economically with other countries.

Shouldn't you be shooting yourself in a bunker somewhere?

Really, this is ridiculous.

Blub2k4

I dont know why I am all of a sudden thinking of arcadegames.

Wibbs

Macmorris wrote:

Supposedly, there is as great a difference in intelligence between catholics and protestants in Ireland as there is between black Americans and White Americans.

Which only proves that in this instance, it's as much down to culture not genes, as many of the Protestant Irish have the same genetic background as their Catholic neighbours(certainly if Irish surnames are anything to go by). Educational and environmental advantages have as much a part to play. Especially given your example that suggests that the Irish are so "pure". Which they're not, which you would see if you look at the strong east west genetic differences. By your example, only people west of the Shannon are fit to be called "Irish".

You seem to be a supporter of eugenics. So am I, but if we want to raise our IQ we would be better off if we focused on improving the quality of our own people instead of bringing in thousands of foreigners and hoping that they'll make up for our deficiencies.

How pray tell does one "improve" the quality of our genes? We've only scratched the surface of the human genome. How do we know that by eliminating one "bad" gene we don't affect the gene for musical ability for instance. Look at Asbergers syndrome(sp), a disease close to autism. Many great minds today and throughout history have had this(especially in the fields of mathematics and physics). The same may be said of depression which has strong genetic markers. Many great minds in history have come from genetic backgrounds that would seem to have had little advantage. It's more complicated than that. We are not racehorses. The same simple rules do not apply. In fact throughbreds of any species(dogs are a classic example) tend to be significantly weaker than their mongrel counterparts. So no, I'm not a supporter of eugenics, certainly not in any form you would seem to favour.

I didn't know that. Are they serious diseases?

Yep, Spina bifida , hemochromatosis, coeliac disease to name three. We have among the highest in the world of those particular conditions. For asthma, which has environmental attributes as well as genetic, we're second in incidence only to the UK. Autism has similarly high rates among the Irish. Depression as well.

I'm not so sure about that. Mixing genes isn't good in itself. Sometimes the results of mixing are good, sometimes they're not. If we want an evolutionary advantage we can have a eugenics programme to encourage our more intelligent people to have more children so we'll raise our low IQ and be better able to compete economically with other countries.

For a start, our low IQ is debatable as the one study that showed this was so flawed and politically loaded as to be useless. It's even more surprising given our contribution to world culture that is far greater than our size would suggest. Maybe it's all that pesky genetic depression that gives our writers an advantage.

Anyone who says inbreeding is bad should just take a look at the Icelandics. They seem to be doing alright for themselves and they're probably the most inbred people on the planet.

Actually they're not. Their gene pool is made up of Scandinavian, Scots and Irish stock. In fact they do have quite high rates of genetic disease and because of their extensive family records going back many generations, they are often used to research genetic disease(and genetics in general). Also Iceland as a country is very young. Young enough to escape the more disastrous ravages of inbreeding so far.

Humans as a species are very very closely related genetically. It has been noted that the genetic differences between any two people on this planet are less marked than between two groups of chimpanzees seperated by only a few miles. This genetic closeness is even more marked among Europeans, as we have the lowest number of common ancestors among all races. I would suggest that any reduction in the genepool is a bad thing.

Catsmokinpot

Macmorris wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. Mixing genes isn't good in itself. Sometimes the results of mixing are good, sometimes they're not. If we want an evolutionary advantage we can have a eugenics programme to encourage our more intelligent people to have more children so we'll raise our low IQ and be better able to compete economically with other countries.



Anyone who says inbreeding is bad should just take a look at the Icelandics. They seem to be doing alright for themselves and they're probably the most inbred people on the planet.

sorry but this just takes the biscuit! how on earth do you think that inbreeding and not mixing genes is good for you??? what the hell??? im sorry but all you have to do to i look at pure breed dogs, have bucket loads of defects eg. pugs + ****zu's are bread for their flat faces problem with this is their isn't many pugs about any more. so, alot of them that are born have huge problems with their eyes. dalmations have lots of genetic defects aswell because of inbreeding. they have problems with hearing and most of them are born deaf. and the list goes on..... my uncle had a pure bread cocker spaniel craziest thing in the world would run around in circles all day long well in to the night in the same spot... found out its mother was a cousin of the father..

you want to keep it in the family? thats fine. dont go saying its good for you though cause its not.

then you ramble on about incouraging smart people to have children..... guess that means you won't be having many children then will you?

Macmorris

Wibbs wrote:

Which only proves that in this instance, it's as much down to culture not genes, as many of the Protestant Irish have the same genetic background as their Catholic neighbours.

I'm not so sure about that. Irish protestants are mostly descended from English and Scottish planters and haven't mixed all that much with the catholic Irish so they are probably more closely related genetically to the superior Anglo-Saxon stock of England and Lowland Scotland.

Especially given your example that suggests that the Irish are so "pure".

I never said that Irish people are genetically pure. We're genetically homogenous compared with most other European countries and that homogeneity goes pack thousands of years. But just because we're not 'pure' doesn't mean that we don't have a certain genetic identity that is worth preserving.

How pray tell does one "improve" the quality of our genes?

By encouraging our intelligent people to have more children and by discouraging our less intelligent people from having them. If we did that we might gradually begin to raise our low national IQ.

So no, I'm not a supporter of eugenics, certainly not in any form you would seem to favour.

I was using a broad definition of the term eugenics. When people say that immigration will improve the gene-pool they might not realize it, but they're expressing a eugenic point of view. Anyone who wants to 'improve the gene-pool' is a supporter of eugenics by my definition of the word. Maybe 'evolutionary' might be a less controversial word than eugenics but I think the latter has a less ambiguous meaning.

Yep, Spina bifida , hemochromatosis, coeliac disease to name three. We have among the highest in the world of those particular conditions.

Maybe those diseases are caused by breeding within a small genetic group, but I think there are far more effective ways of reducing their occurence than by bringing in thousands of foreigners and hoping that they'll diversify the gene-pool. And whatever native diseases we get rid, I'm sure we'll be only importing other foreign diseases. I remember reading about some disease that was introduced to the British Isles by the mixed-race offspring of British soldiers and Indians. That's one example of where crossing our genes can actually have a negative effect.

If those diseases are caused by bad genes, then it shouldn't be too difficult to track the carriers and try to prevent them from passing on the disease. I think we should make genetic counselling mandatory for any woman who plans to have children.

For a start, our low IQ is debatable as the one study that showed this was so flawed and politically loaded as to be useless.

I remember reading about another study carried out by an Austrian university that confirmed those findings.

Actually they're not. Their gene pool is made up of Scandinavian, Scots and Irish stock.

They might have had a diverse gene pool at the start but because the population was so small, and because they were so isolated geographically, it didn't take long for them to mix it up. Iceland as a country is over a thousand years old. A thousand years of crossing in a population only a fraction the size of Ireland's is likely to result in a rate of inbreeding far greater than anything we have experienced in Ireland. The Icelandics are much more inbred than the Irish will ever be.

Humans as a species are very very closely related genetically. It has been noted that the genetic differences between any two people on this planet are less marked than between two groups of chimpanzees seperated by only a few miles.

And to extend that further, I once remember reading how genetic differences between breeds of dogs are much less marked than differences between humans. So a pit-bull is more similar genetically to a poodle than an Irishman is to a Chineseman. Yet no-one would say that there is no difference between a pit-bull and a poodle. The crucial difference is with the phenotype (how the genes manifest themselves externally) rather than with genotype (the DNA code).

It's on phenotypes that natural selection operates, and so the important differences between any two organisms are in external physical and internal cognitive traits, as those are the kinds of things that determine an animal's suvival abilities in their particular environments. Therefore saying that two races or breeds of a species share a very similar genotype is really meaningless when the important differences are phenotypical.

Macmorris

Catsmokinpot wrote:

sorry but this just takes the biscuit! how on earth do you think that inbreeding and not mixing genes is good for you???

I wasn't actually advocating incestuous inbreeding. Nobody would deny that that kind of inbreeding is a bad thing.

It was inbreeding on a national scale, among a bigger but isolated genetic group, that I was talking about. One of the reasons people give to justify immigration into Ireland is that we need to diversify our gene-pool because we're too 'inbred'. I don't believe that there is any evidence to suggest that an isolated gene-pool (at least not on a national scale) is such a bad thing or that mixing with foreign genes is somehow inherently good.

Iceland is a perfect example of a country that could be considered genetically inbred and yet nobody would suggest that Iceland is a nation of illiterate hill-billies. Apart from a higher incidence of certain diseases, overall, most people's view of the Icelandics is of a tough, healthy, successful people. People can't argue therefore that genetic isolation has been bad for Iceland or that they might be become more successful if they'd just open their borders to more immigrants.

then you ramble on about incouraging smart people to have children..... guess that means you won't be having many children then will you?

Neither will you. It's spelled 'encouraging'.

rsynnott

So I take it you're not too impressed with the inevitable world in a thousand years, where we'll all be brown?

ykt0di9url7bc3

A few things...

Macmorris wrote:

I never said that Irish people are genetically pure. We're genetically homogenous compared with most other European countries and that homogeneity goes pack thousands of years. But just because we're not 'pure' doesn't mean that we don't have a certain genetic identity that is worth preserving.

Why is it worth preserving? Why cant we preserve our traditions\morals\culture rather than our red hair and freckles?

Macmorris wrote:

By encouraging our intelligent people to have more children and by discouraging our less intelligent people from having them. If we did that we might gradually begin to raise our low national IQ.

Did you read my posts about the how suspect IQ is? and can you prove that its the genes rather that the enviroment that attribute to the so called amazing IQ

Macmorris wrote:

I was using a broad definition of the term eugenics. When people say that immigration will improve the gene-pool they might not realize it, but they're expressing a eugenic point of view. Anyone who wants to 'improve the gene-pool' is a supporter of eugenics by my definition of the word. Maybe 'evolutionary' might be a less controversial word than eugenics but I think the latter has a less ambiguous meaning.

Maybe those diseases are caused by breeding within a small genetic group, but I think there are far more effective ways of reducing their occurence than by bringing in thousands of foreigners and hoping that they'll diversify the gene-pool. And whatever native diseases we get rid, I'm sure we'll be only importing other foreign diseases. I remember reading about some disease that was introduced to the British Isles by the mixed-race offspring of British soldiers and Indians. That's one example of where crossing our genes can actually have a negative effect.

If those diseases are caused by bad genes, then it shouldn't be too difficult to track the carriers and try to prevent them from passing on the disease. I think we should make genetic counselling mandatory for any woman who plans to have children.

How can one acheive anything if one has no obstalces to overcome...
Einstein, Feynman, Stalone, Brosnan, Hawking, Ray Charles, Bethoven... etc

Give me a genius and I'll give you cirumstances and I'll give you enviroments... eugenics has been rehashed so much here is getting boring citing the same fundamental flaws... I dont hold a candle to some previous posters points & posts made on the subject... its a shame that this debate hasn't caught their eyes...

As for genetic counsiling, I know well that I my family has had a history involving Muscular Distrophy... its simple family medical history that means that I dont go out and give a child a ~14 year death sentence... It doesnt mean I should try and persue a family but means a bit of checking has to be done first... You dont strike me as a family man Macmorris... "the man" has as much responsibilty as "the woman" for conception, welfare, and future of "the child".

Wiki wrote:

Many phenotypes are determined by multiple genes and influenced by environmental factors. Thus, the identity of one or a few known alleles does not always enable prediction of the phenotype.

Nevertheless, because phenotypes are much easier to observe than genotypes (it doesn't take chemistry or sequencing to determine a person's eye color), classical genetics uses phenotypes to deduce the functions of genes. Breeding experiments can then check these inferences. In this way, early geneticists were able to trace inheritance patterns without any knowledge whatsoever of molecular biology.

The interaction between genotype and phenotype has often been described using a simple equation:

genotype + environment → phenotype

Enviroment being the key word I'd like to point out in that section... if Ireland can be a good enviroment for living. Why cant any person add more to our genepool our society regardless of race and creed?

You can argue these points till the cows come home as its very hypothetical and broad-ranging discussion....

The most worrying part of your little rant here and I hope others have spotted this...

Macmorris wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. Irish protestants are mostly descended from English and Scottish planters and haven't mixed all that much with the catholic Irish so they are probably more closely related genetically to the superior Anglo-Saxon stock of England and Lowland Scotland.

I dont like your Idea of linking creed to a supposodly superior genetic pool...

Smells of Stormfront bull****to me, which has all the marks of racial profiling, eugenics, anti-immagration, etc...

This "Superior Anglo-Saxon stock"...please explain and back your point up.

rsynnott

Julia Gifted Windbag wrote:

As for genetic counsiling, I know well that I my family has had a history involving Muscular Distrophy... its simple family medical history that means that I dont go out and give a child a ~14 year death sentence... It doesnt mean I should try and persue a family but means a bit of checking has to be done first... You dont strike me as a family man Macmorris... "the man" has as much responsibilty as "the woman" for conception, welfare, and future of "the child".

Ssh; they haven't gotten that far in sex-ed class yet.

Julia Gifted Windbag wrote:

I dont like your Idea of linking creed to a supposodly superior genetic pool...

Smells of Stormfront bull****to me, which has all the marks of racial profiling, eugenics, anti-immagration, etc...

This "Superior Anglo-Saxon stock"...please explain and back your point up.

And the rest of his post didn't?

madfistbt

Let This Depressing Thread Die You ****s, You Lot Have An Unhealthy Obsession With This Subject. Face It The Whole Worlds Gonna Be Multicultural Soon Enough So Get Used To It You ****ing *****

rsynnott

madfistbt wrote:

Let This Depressing Thread Die You ****s, You Lot Have An Unhealthy Obsession With This Subject. Face It The Whole Worlds Gonna Be Multicultural Soon Enough So Get Used To It You ****ing *****

I know the world is, and I think it's a very good thing, though I think it'll be at least a couple of centuries before the Nazis die out. And why not continue this discussion? It's fascinating to hear what the bigots really think.

And it's hardly depressing; it seems to show that most of the people on this board at least are sensible non-bigots.

madfistbt

Bloody hell ive relighted this threads fire take that style. Poland hasnt got blacks thats what the builder said. THIS THREAD IS **** IVE GOT A RECOMMENDATION

http://homepage.eircom.net/~dustinhoffman/gay.html

Now no more replys on this **** THREAD unless you stink of ****

rsynnott

madfistbt wrote:

Bloody hell ive relighted this threads fire take that style. Poland hasnt got blacks thats what the builder said. THIS THREAD IS **** IVE GOT A RECOMMENDATION

What are you talking about?

Wibbs

Macmorris wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. Irish protestants are mostly descended from English and Scottish planters and haven't mixed all that much with the catholic Irish so they are probably more closely related genetically to the superior Anglo-Saxon stock of England and Lowland Scotland.

There are very little gene differences between the Scots lowland stock and "ours". certainly not enough to explain the differences you contend are there. A cursory look at bloodtypes alone would show you that. BTW, the Anglo-Saxons are from the same "stock" as the Celts. They were considered as much a bunch of barbarians by the Romans as any of the other tribes. Remember the Romans? Short eyeties the lot o' them. :rolleyes:

I never said that Irish people are genetically pure. We're genetically homogenous compared with most other European countries and that homogeneity goes pack thousands of years. But just because we're not 'pure' doesn't mean that we don't have a certain genetic identity that is worth preserving.

A genetic identity that you have pointed out is apparently inferior to "superior" Anglo-Saxon stock". Meh, doesn't seem remotely worth preserving by that standard.

Maybe those diseases are caused by breeding within a small genetic group, but I think there are far more effective ways of reducing their occurence than by bringing in thousands of foreigners and hoping that they'll diversify the gene-pool. And whatever native diseases we get rid, I'm sure we'll be only importing other foreign diseases. I remember reading about some disease that was introduced to the British Isles by the mixed-race offspring of British soldiers and Indians. That's one example of where crossing our genes can actually have a negative effect.

Some disease? Expand please. Links would be helpful. I won't mention the diseases that white europeans introduced to the rest of world then.

If those diseases are caused by bad genes, then it shouldn't be too difficult to track the carriers and try to prevent them from passing on the disease. I think we should make genetic counselling mandatory for any woman who plans to have children.

As was pointed out it takes two to tango. Certain quarters seem to blame the women for any dgradation of their "race". Give me a break.

I remember reading about another study carried out by an Austrian university that confirmed those findings.

Again a link would be helpful.

They might have had a diverse gene pool at the start but because the population was so small, and because they were so isolated geographically, it didn't take long for them to mix it up. Iceland as a country is over a thousand years old. A thousand years of crossing in a population only a fraction the size of Ireland's is likely to result in a rate of inbreeding far greater than anything we have experienced in Ireland. The Icelandics are much more inbred than the Irish will ever be.

Actually no. One of the reasons the Icelandics kept extensive family records was to minimise inbreeding. They recognised it themselves that far back. I always wondered why Iceland is regularly trotted out as an example of the pure white race by certain quarters. I mean, other than Bjork and Magnus Magnusson, name another famous Icelander.

And to extend that further, I once remember reading how genetic differences between breeds of dogs are much less marked than differences between humans. So a pit-bull is more similar genetically to a poodle than an Irishman is to a Chineseman. Yet no-one would say that there is no difference between a pit-bull and a poodle. The crucial difference is with the phenotype (how the genes manifest themselves externally) rather than with genotype (the DNA code).

Only partially correct. Dogs are a bad example as they have the most mutable expressable gene pool of almost any animal. You're lazily comparing apples and oranges here. In any case there are genotypal differences between a poodle and a pit bull.

It's on phenotypes that natural selection operates, and so the important differences between any two organisms are in external physical and internal cognitive traits, as those are the kinds of things that determine an animal's suvival abilities in their particular environments. Therefore saying that two races or breeds of a species share a very similar genotype is really meaningless when the important differences are phenotypical.

Phenotypes can only exist if the genotype allows their expression.

rsynott wrote:

it seems to show that most of the people on this board at least are sensible non-bigots.

I surprised meself TBH. Don't worry, normal service will be resumed shortly.......

meditraitor

please close this thread

Not one person has addressed the topic i wanted discussed for 100 posts, and even before then it was either big mouth liberals with big sticks or mud slingers....

Mark

rsynnott

meditraitor wrote:

please close this thread

Not one person has addressed the topic i wanted discussed for 100 posts, and even before then it was either big mouth liberals with big sticks or mud slingers....

Mark

HOW DARE PEOPLE NOT AGREE WITH ME? HOW DARE PEOPLE NOT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS? DESTROY THEM ALL!!! CLOSE THE THREAD!

meditraitor

rsynnott wrote:

HOW DARE PEOPLE NOT AGREE WITH ME? HOW DARE PEOPLE NOT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS? DESTROY THEM ALL!!! CLOSE THE THREAD!

Ive come across you before, and from experience, my opinion of you is that you contribute nothing to any debate you have entered except a dogged entusaism to show how much of a argumentative(sophist) gob**** you are..


Let me put this to you

Boards-create thread-on topic that you find -interesting - debate or thread dies

Not once have you(especially) tried to answer my queries..


For anyone who is interested, I will sum it up

How is racism effecting people in ireland, how does it effect their lives, maybe a contribution from some immigrants of different ehtnic or racial backrounds might get it going, or someone with some first hand knowledge. I would just like to get some feedback on this.

I feel embarresed looking at the route this thread has taken , that includes both sides of the badly managed argument about racial genetic differences, WTF. do any of you's have any cop on-- If you had any cop on you wouldnt lower yourself to debate such a stupid notion.

rsynnott

meditraitor wrote:

For anyone who is interested, I will sum it up

How is racism effecting people in ireland, how does it effect their lives, maybe a contribution from some immigrants of different ehtnic or racial backrounds might get it going, or someone with some first hand knowledge. I would just like to get some feedback on this.

You left out the one that caused so much controversy:

meditraitor wrote:

And if so why dont they move on?

And a few other little comments which indicate an opinion that racism is acceptable.

HTH