Oh jon, his statements aren't crazy, and while the implications of that information may be unpleasant, to call him racist for bringing that information up alone is pretty much calling reality itself racist for not demonstrating equality in the stats being used in the first place.
If there is a trend among a demographic, pointing to that trend is not itself racist. Using that trend to make assumptions about the group can be. Using the trend as justification for treating people differently is. But pointing to the trend itself isn't.
SimpleFool said:
Story said:
Not gonna lie, I'm just sitting here lurking but I'm getting creeped out with the analogy of a group's perceived genetic aggressiveness with the breeding of dogs. Very, very creepy and demeaning if I'm going to be quite honest.
It's an analogy I haven't made.
It's a simple question: are behavioral traits heritable? If traits show up in differing environments with the same breed of dog, is it fair to say it is at least possible that the trait is inherent in the breed of the dog, and cannot be credibly reduced solely to the environment? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the next question is: are human behavioral traits possibly heritable?
If the answer to that question is "yes," then we may ask: ought noticing, and even stating, that some human behavioral traits may possibly be heritable be considered reprehensible, censurable, or punishable, and if so, why?
And if not, most of the loudest here seem to have some explaining to do.
An interesting question. I'll jump in because I rather enjoy the nature v nurture debate, have some opinions about flaws people pass over with regard to it, and because quite frankly watching it be handwaved away because the implications alone upset people is a discredit to the reasoning behind it in the first place.
With dogs, they are certainly breed for specific traits such as size, color, patterns, etc, though behavior is a harder one to pin down. Unlike the visually identifiable traits, mental ones, where such patterns of behavior would stem from, are far harder to pin down. Experience has been shown to have drastic effects on behavior after all, easily shaping it in smarter animals, especially those more predisposed to being susceptible to it. I would go so far as to argue that before any arguments can be even put forth about inherited behavior, you would really have to pin down which ones are instinctual and which are learned.
Not that anyone can deny some behaviors are inherited predispositions. Dog's behavior of sniffing to explore the world around them would be impossible to deny as inherent. Harder to pin down behavior between breeds though. Considering that experience can over-rule the predisposition to a behavior (any dog trained to not bark for instance), and the way humans treat and train dogs often with purpose express to their breed (rottweilers and pit bulls as guard dogs, for instance) it can create a pattern of behavior that is bound to the breed that still isn't inherent to the breed genetically.
Those dismissing that behavior is entirely uninheritable though are simply flat-out wrong though. Pinpointing what traits are inherited is difficult, but dismissing it entirely is ignoring reality. Animals of every sort have natural behavior. Hell, migratory animals like birds have such behavior so ingrained into their species that they completely depend upon it for continuation of that species.
