If sb states "women and men" are different, this person is a) not automatically a sexist and b) not emotional about it.But first - I used harsh words, because It got me emotionally, but even in retrospect I think that you 'defend' the taboo around 'racism' with emotion, so it projects, that people will do so with moral fervour.
I hope you do not consider this an ad hominem, but could it be that you are lying to yourself because you are afraid of your own thoughts? Never in my dreams would I come up with sick thoughts like giving people medication.
Should? Are you argueing from morality again? It depends what you are measuring. But I am glad we come to an agreement: there are genetic differences. And we agree that they are not strong enough to justify different treatment, e.g. by a university. (Hope I did not misunderstood you)As for the counter arguments. There can be genetic differences - which amongst 'race' usually should be superseeded in effect by cultural ones.
I don´t agree that we have to keep it a taboo. Nature is neither fair nor equal. People vastly differ in beauty, for example. I am against shaming anyone for sth they cannot change (e.g. my nose) but we should not keep up the delusion that everyone is equally attractive either.- There would be no way to express a small (lets say it is small) difference, in a way - that it would lead to public action that would actually represent that small difference. There would always be prejudice that kicks in. And it would be the very bad kind - because of presumed tribalism tendencies. So you have to go with the zero sum option of 'always keep it a taboo'. ("We have none of it.")
So are you for or against Harvard´s racism against Asian Americans? Sorry, I don´t understand this statement.And even if not (lets take the Harvard case of them adjusting the entry point goalposts for asians (see video)), complexity kills you here (how would you argue for an adjustment on the non public level, between races to be just). So again, its back to the other option 'always keep it a taboo'.
I would like to move away from the dog topic as I do know much about it. Generally though, your "opponent" was correct that evolution applies to us just as to any other animal. If there is separation (e.g. a busy street suddenly separating on kind of insects) evolutionary paths diverge.- On social 'breeding' due to culture, I somewhat disagree. Wealth is not a good indicator for any common characteristic. (Getting into an Ivy league college would be a better one. ) Also it should be much, much harder to keep lines 'as you'd want them' to achieve anything close to our Chihuahua result.
Extremes matter for inventions (inventors tend to be extremely intelligent) in the positive sense and crime rates in the negative sense. That´s why women are underrepresented in both aspects (females are less "extreme" than men for obvious biological reasons). But averages do matter if we are talking societies. You shouldn´t treat individuals before you know them though. (otherwise you might dismiss Yao Ming as a basketball player)The last argument - and that also works agains your (our culture made so much progress in that regard) is, that the average doesnt matter at all. Individual action matters. (Faster to next Einstein should not be achievable by raising the average. (US has modeled their entire education system around that I believe.. ))
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,