Why do people care about race? Why do people judge others based on race? You can't choose your race...

That's a strawman, my friend.

We may not be all the same, but I don't think that these inherent differences can justify any sort of oppression and overt racism.

Phenotypical expressions are a valid hueristic by which to judge a person's pre-dispositions to behavior.

>That's a strawman, my friend.
I'm aware, user.

You can get a better proxy by talking to people for two minutes unless you are autistic.

I genuinely believe black people are less intelligent

>unless you are autistic.
Good job excluding everyone who posts on this shithole mate.

People are racist because of society. In America especially there's a lot of propaganda from 1. Slavery and Jim Crow, 2. The "Yellow Peril", and 3. Whatever you call the whole "tightening up of our borders" thing(not that I disagree with tighter borders, but you can't deny it has been used previously with racist connotations). What doesn't help is that many blacks are still inner-city disenfranchised and often turn to crime, many immigrants don't speak English, and many Asian ethnic groups often seclude themselves and stick together.

You also don't choose your intellect, does that mean you shouldn't be judged by it either?

Yes, but unlike Race, you can't tell someone's intellect by taking 5 second glance at them.

>being this dumb

>people weren't racist until society told them to be
I can't tell if this is a troll or not. Either way, pretending to be retarded is still being retarded.

>not having an argument

Tell me what intellect is, give me an objective agreed upon definition of the word and way of measuring it.

>inb4 "m-muh IQ!"
Shoo shoo reddit goblin.

If it's objective why do we disagree about where to draw the line?

Intellect is gained from knowledge and experience tho just because your not born as a human calculator doesnt make you inherantily Adverage or dumb

Well, he's right. Can you tell someone's intellect by looking at them? Or do you just apply the (perceived) average race IQ to every individual? Because that's dumb.

Have you been to Africa mate? Spend some weeks there and you will quickly find yourself enlightened

So what? That wasn't part of the reasoning in the OP. He said that you don't choose X therefore you shouldn't be judged by it. But that's patently absurd, there's lots of things that you don't choose that still are very useful and it's fair to use them to make judgments about you.
>Intellect is gained from knowledge
I'm not talking about knowledge, I'm talking about cognitive capacity, which is determined almost entirely by factors outside your will, such as genetics and your SES during childhood.

Was I replying to the OP? I don't think I was. Its a false analogy, and it simply doesn't work.

A better comparison would be height, as people can see that immediately, but people are still judged on that.

>Was I replying to the OP? I don't think I was.
You replied to me, and I was replying to OP.
>Its a false analogy
It's not with respect to the argument OP was making, you're making a different argument, so let's takcle that.
Let's see if I'm understanding you: you're saying that a person shouldn't be judged by something that A) they didn't choose AND B) can be judged in a matter of seconds.
Am I correctly describing what you said?

If someone makes a statement about the blueness of the sky, and you reply with something tangentially related about the color of some other object, and I reply to your reply, when did I invite the discussion of the sky? As I said, I do not think I did.

Now, to get to your current point: I'm not saying someone should or should not be judged based on any individual quality. I was merely stating that your analogy was a failed one.

It's not tangentially related at all, his whole argument, stated formally, was
>P1: You shouldn't be judged by something you didn't choose
>P2: Race is something you didn't choose
>C, by deduction: Therefore you shouldn't be judged by your race
I then made a counterargument which proved P1 to be wrong, since I showed a characteristic that nobody chooses and yet we all agree it makes perfect sense to judge you by.
I don't see how this is tangential, in fact, I don't see how I could have made a refutation that was more on point than what I did.

Seeing it no longer as an analogy but as a counterargument still looks to be a failure.
Intellect can in fact, by almost any given metric, can be shown to change over time. That is indisputable fact, whether you believe it to be based on IQ( as IQ test scores can change), or on Knowledge held (obviously someone who spends his time reading books will know more than someone who doesn't), or even of the study of the "Hard" sciences of Physics and Math, where its a matter of problem solving, pattern recognition, and formulaic knowledge, which, again, all three can be practiced.

I fail to see how intellect is something that is inherently set, when it can so clearly be stroked at the very least. We don't choose our race, that much is true, but can the same really be said of our intellect/knowledge or "smarts"? What is the objective basis for intellect?

subsahara africa didn't develop a written language or the wheel when they got colonized by white people who had already developed firearms.

maybe the intellect of a race is its history of improvement of their live, commune and culture.

other standard: how many mathematicians/philosophers belong to a race.

>maybe the intellect of a race is
Races aren't entities, they don't have intellects. The people of a race have an average intellect, which doesn't apply to specific individuals.

>I fail to see how intellect is something that is inherently set
My argument doesn't require it to be inherently set, it just needs to be outside your influence.
>Intellect can in fact, by almost any given metric, can be shown to change over time. That is indisputable fact
It's a indisputable fact, yes, does it help your case, no, see above. As for knowledge, I've already stated I'm referring to cognitive ability, not knowledge, and even though it definitely changes through time, basically every significant change is outside your influence.

>The people of a race have an average intellect, which doesn't apply to specific individuals.
Not him, but that's sort of misleading.
The average intellect of a population has very important implications for individuals of that population. The chance of, say, having an IQ of 140 if you're from a population where the average IQ is 100 is very different from the chance of having the same IQ if you're from a population where the average is 90 (given the same standard deviation in both populations).

Yes. And? If I meet a person, I don't want a probability distribution of his IQ based on a mediocre proxy, I want his IQ.

But you don't get his IQ (presumably you don't stop him on his tracks and give him a WAIS-IV) you only get several proxies, one of which can easily be the population he belongs to.

Can you really not give a more precise range of a person's intelligence by talking to them? It's pretty much instantly evident if a person is smart or not. And even if I had to use a generic proxy, I'd use the education level.

>Can you really not give a more precise range of a person's intelligence by talking to them?
Of course you can, I'm not saying use only the ethnic background, I'm simply saying it's something that you can reasonably use.

Not really reasonable if other options are better, but ok.

Many ancient empires were anything but racist, in fact the cosmopolitan character has always been seen as a sign of success in a vast empire.
I'm not saying that it means that no one was racist in ancient times, what I'm syaing is that such examples give us a ulterior proof of how much is racism caused by societal factors.

Not that user
But you don't get his IQ (presumably you don't stop him on his tracks and give him a WAIS-IV) you only get several proxies, one of which can easily be the population he belongs to.

I'm pretty sure that there are far more poignant characteristics you can look for when trying to determine one's aggressivity (since I see the need of knowing the IQ of a neutral person insignificant): where are you, how is this guy dressed, what's his behaviour, how many people are around and so on.

To adopt a certain mindset when a black guy in a hoodie is walking towards you in a empty car park at night is perfectly reasonable; it stops being reasonable when you start applying it outside of such contexts (especially cause I can see behind that fake reasonable guise of yours, and your complete lack of empathy for other men as soon as they're dumber and weaker).

What I think is that the discrimination you want to enact is completely unnecessary, shows a complete lack of belief in human dignity, and completely discredit the individual's experience. You disgust me.

>Not really reasonable if other options are better
Sure, discard proxies that have become useless given better evidence, not a problem with that.

>your complete lack of empathy for other men as soon as they're dumber and weaker)
user, I'm sorry but what? I'm not the most emotional person out there, sure, but I don't lack empathy for dumber and/or weaker people.
>What I think is that the discrimination you want to enact is completely unnecessary
Unnecessary to what, in what context? There are obvious situation in which it's meaningless, like saying finding a friend or asking for information or hiring someone for a job in places without positive discrimination. But it becomes quite relevant in matters of immigration as regression to the mean is a thing, and exceptional individuals of one group have kids that tend to be closer to the mean of that group. So if I have two families and only one spot available, and I'm judging by ability, and they're all the same except in ethnic background, I'm going to prefer the one from better off populations.

Because I like people who look like me. Fuck niggers.

1. There are biological differences between us that impact the ability to reason.
2. Different races develop different cultures, some of which are complete shit.

What a shallow, insipid outlook on people. Why do you consider white trash to be respectable individuals?

>retards apply statistical group averages to individuals
>retards

Listen, if actuaries can do it, so can I. It is not racist to be more cautious of a black man on the street than a white man, it's common fucking sense. If you turn to your black friend of 4 years and say in all seriousness "I know your kind like to steal shit, but please leave my stuff alone while I go to the bathroom," that's fucking racist.

True but we should not just factor race into judgment. It doesn't make sense to be scared of a black guy wearing a suit but feel safe around a white guy dressed like druggie trash. But /pol/ acts like it's OK to just think about race.

if they are then thats a bi-product of poor education stemming from poverty and historic discrimination, not connected genetically to the race

Babies are ethnocentric before social/environmental factors are even involved. This is because families have been largely monocultures and thus allow them to be more cohesive with those they rely on.

>it's only /pol/
black cabbies want to stay of black neighborhoods and reduce black passengers also.

>races develop cultures

yep just the races
who cares about climate, fauna, proximity to other cultures,etc

that is all a feedback loop which becomes biological, you can either accept this or be a fuller retard than creationists.

A black guy wearing a suit is probably a pimp

>You can get a better proxy by talking to people for two minutes unless you are autistic.
>implying I have the time to waste spending two minutes talking to every nigger I meet on the street in order to come to the astonishing conclusion that they were actually niggers the whole time.

>valid
No. Because not everyone conforms to their groups standards.

Assumptions, especially based on physical appearance, are not a valid criteria for judgement in the long run.

yes but when you are in circumstances when you have to deal with populations at large such as in the armed services, student body or workforce, it is inescapable.

I'll use an example. Imagine if every woman and several men think that you will rape them when the opportunity arrives for no reason at all. They just do.

How are you to prove that you won't rape them in your day to day life and interactions especially amongst people you will encounter but not communicate deeply with or they just look at you? You also have to realise that just like the phrase when police say your rights in the States "Anything you say may be used you prove my pre-conceived notions that I have of you and can and WILL be used against you." .

That shit just forces you to constantly every single moment of your day police your behavior, your action your body EVERYTHING to the T to make sure that you don't trigger some fuck. Then many times even if you do keep everything up it will always get negated randomly when random shit happens and you are REMINDED of how people perceive you that you user are a rapist.

Lots of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You can't just apply stats ALONE. You actually have to apply other things to fully understand WHY that stat is done as is.

you don't need causation to use statistics to predict.

You need to understand WHY the stats are like that.

tell that to epidemiologists about smokers.

Innocent until proven guilty. Depending on demographics the people who are fearful would also have to change their behavior since they are interacting day to day with those they fear. The is purely irrational as people shouldn't drastically change their life around a group of people, especially when it's only a handful of them doing the crimes.

Depends on what you consider white trash. I bet you'd lump a whole lot of genuinely good, respectable people under that label