Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

Guest wrote:

/Erdogan wrote:Maybe one of our helicopters is gone, but they will pay for this. Not in kind, but so much more, because we are determined, and we believe we are superior. We will succeed in this as well.

Isn't the notion that "we believe we are superior" a common theme in almost all ethnic conflicts?

How can an ethnicity be superior?

(I have my own answer to that, but I'm after yours.)

Aloha!

There are several ways that an ethnic group may claim to be superior to another. Some of these may be true, others are always false.

The most common form of superiority that people claim is intrinsic superiority. This claim is that one ethnic group is more valuable or worth more that another group. This is the claim that they are better simply for being who they are. There is never any evidence to support the notion of intrinsic superiority, it is simply assumed. I do not believe that there even can be any evidence in favour of intrinsic superiority. Rather, I believe the words of Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. More that that, I believe the doctrine of the Bible that men are created in the image and likeness of God. According to this doctrine, all claims of intrinsic superiority must be false.

A second claim is one of material superiority. This is simply the claim that one ethnic group has more or better stuff than another. Although this is often debatable, it is sometimes so manifestly true that it hardly needs to be said. Material superiority is often used as evidence to support the claim of intrinsic superiority, but I cannot see the logic of this.

A third claim related to the second is one of strategic superiority. That is that one ethnic group has a strategic, tactical, or military advantage over another ethnic group. Because nations sometimes win wars against other nations, it is evident that some nations do in fact have a strategic advantage.

A third type of superiority often claimed is genetic superiority. Although this claim is often made without any basis whatsoever, it can sometimes be true in particular traits. For example, people of Irish descent are more likely to have genetic propensity for thyroid and adrenal problems; these traits result in a lower metabolism which provided an advantage for surviving the Irish Potato Famine, but is a disadvantage for most other purposes. Other genetic traits can less clear: for example, the Irish propensity for relatively pale skin (compared to many groups) may be an advantage in Ireland, but it becomes a disadvantage in the Australian desert. In the end, there are so many genetic traits (and so many of them can be both good and bad in different contexts) that it is impossible and responsible to say that any ethnic group is absolutely genetically superior to any other.

A fourth way that an ethnic group sometimes claims to be superior to another is moral superiority. This claim asserts that one ethnic group has a higher moral conduct than another. This is by far the most complicated one to evaluate. Some would claim morality is entirely culturally dependent and that because of this no culture can be morally superior to another. But this argument is not only contrary to the Bible, but it is difficult to support when confronted with such flagrantly immoral things as rape or murder. If one accepts a standard of absolute morality, it becomes clear that some vices run more heavily in some ethno-cultural groups than in others. For example, some practice cannibalism, some don't. Some practice infanticide, some don't. However, the ethnic groups that abstain from some vices by participate more in others. Additionally, even the statistics that measure which crimes are commit more often by which race of people are usually fiercely debated. Because of these reasons, moral superiority of one ethnic group over another is very difficult to prove.

These are some of the ways that one ethnicity may claim to be superior to another. I look forward to your response.

Guest wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:My opinion on the matter is that a supremacist simply "dogmatically" makes that claim, and the simple fact that he DOES make that claim instantly labels him as an "ethnic supremacist", which also instantly invalidates any "evidence" he makes in support of his supremacist claim.

In other words, since it is impossible (aka just silly and invalid) to claim that an ethnicity can be superior to any other ethnicity, the very ACT of claiming such an absurd "thing" reduces the claimants credibility to zero.

I have a question: How can making a claim possibly invalidate any evidence for that claim?

You can say that there is no evidence that one ethnic group is inferior to another. You can say that the evidence is insufficient. You can even say that the evidence does not exist. But surely the claim is absurd because the evidence does not support it, not the other way round.

You are correct that merely "saying" something does not make it true!

..but I shall have to be presented with evidence that it's possible for an "ethnicity" to actually be superior to another "ethnicity".

My position is that the term "ethnicity" is too vague to permit evaluating one of them as superior to another. If you, or anyone else, can define "ethnicity" such that it's possible to rank one as superior to another, I'd by thrilled to hear the definition. I'd also, after hearing that definition, hear any evidence that shows how one of them is superior to another one.

And some assertions are self-invalidating because of their absurdity (in the opinion of the "judge" of the assertion).

For example: To claim that the earth is flat (such as the Flat Earthers claim) is it's own invalidation. Another would be the case where someone claims that I don't exist because their mental-illness deems me to be "not real".

Making a claim is presenting evidence. Making an absurd claim is presenting evidence that the "claimant's" thinking is absurd, and absurd claims are, by definition, absurd.

At any rate, presenting proper evidence that I'm wrong is gratefully accepted, and I'd love to see it!

A culture can certainly be superior, in various ways, to other cultures, but "ethnicity" is not a fit category for the kind of evaluation that could possibly show it to be superior to it's kin.


Aloha! <shaka!>

Guest wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

Guest wrote: Isn't the notion that "we believe we are superior" a common theme in almost all ethnic conflicts?

How can an ethnicity be superior?

(I have my own answer to that, but I'm after yours.)

Aloha!

There are several ways that an ethnic group may claim to be superior to another. Some of these may be true, others are always false.

The most common form of superiority that people claim is intrinsic superiority. This claim is that one ethnic group is more valuable or worth more that another group. This is the claim that they are better simply for being who they are. There is never any evidence to support the notion of intrinsic superiority, it is simply assumed. I do not believe that there even can be any evidence in favour of intrinsic superiority. Rather, I believe the words of Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. More that that, I believe the doctrine of the Bible that men are created in the image and likeness of God. According to this doctrine, all claims of intrinsic superiority must be false.

I agree with all of that EXCEPT the niggling point that "all men" (read as "all individual persons") are created "equal", where "equal" means "of equal fitness to excel in every circumstance". No two people are ever created equal in that respect, but they ARE created with regards to their "dignity of person-ness",.. which I personally think is what Jefferson was getting at, as well as what "in the likeness of God" means.

A second claim is one of material superiority. This is simply the claim that one ethnic group has more or better stuff than another. Although this is often debatable, it is sometimes so manifestly true that it hardly needs to be said. Material superiority is often used as evidence to support the claim of intrinsic superiority, but I cannot see the logic of this.

Material things do not attach to "ethnicity". They attach to individuals. That a superiority of "stuff" happens to reside with individuals within a particular "ethnicity" is simply coincidence.

A third claim related to the second is one of strategic superiority. That is that one ethnic group has a strategic, tactical, or military advantage over another ethnic group. Because nations sometimes win wars against other nations, it is evident that some nations do in fact have a strategic advantage.

A technological superiority is just a special case of "material/stuff" superiority. Once again, it attaches to individuals and not to "ethnicity".

Even "cultural superiority", which does exist but which is never "culture wide" and always consists of select bits of "culture", is a special case of "material/stuff" superiority.

A third type of superiority often claimed is genetic superiority. Although this claim is often made without any basis whatsoever, it can sometimes be true in particular traits. For example, people of Irish descent are more likely to have genetic propensity for thyroid and adrenal problems; these traits result in a lower metabolism which provided an advantage for surviving the Irish Potato Famine, but is a disadvantage for most other purposes. Other genetic traits can less clear: for example, the Irish propensity for relatively pale skin (compared to many groups) may be an advantage in Ireland, but it becomes a disadvantage in the Australian desert. In the end, there are so many genetic traits (and so many of them can be both good and bad in different contexts) that it is impossible and responsible to say that any ethnic group is absolutely genetically superior to any other.

How do genetics define ethnicity? It/they doesn't/don't. This is probably where I'd get the most push-back in my "thesis"! <chuckle!>

Ethnicity is simply a very convenient catchall category. It is used wisely quite often, and unwisely somewhat more often. It is used to divide, both for good and for evil. Do I believe in ethnicity? Yes. Is it simply a tool for groups to use to "get things done"? Yes. Like any other tool, can it be used for good or ill? Yes.

A fourth way that an ethnic group sometimes claims to be superior to another is moral superiority. This claim asserts that one ethnic group has a higher moral conduct than another. This is by far the most complicated one to evaluate. Some would claim morality is entirely culturally dependent and that because of this no culture can be morally superior to another. But this argument is not only contrary to the Bible, but it is difficult to support when confronted with such flagrantly immoral things as rape or murder. If one accepts a standard of absolute morality, it becomes clear that some vices run more heavily in some ethno-cultural groups than in others. For example, some practice cannibalism, some don't. Some practice infanticide, some don't. However, the ethnic groups that abstain from some vices by participate more in others. Additionally, even the statistics that measure which crimes are commit more often by which race of people are usually fiercely debated. Because of these reasons, moral superiority of one ethnic group over another is very difficult to prove.

These are some of the ways that one ethnicity may claim to be superior to another. I look forward to your response.

Morality is simply another "technology", and therefore just a sub-special case of a "material/stuff" which attaches to individuals within a society/culture.

Those who use "ethnicity", or "race", never ever know what they're talking about. Those terms should be avoided with extreme prejudice, as they are just "meaningful" enough to be useful and just "vague" enough to be dangerous.

I believe in cultures. I believe in nations. I believe in the Donuts on Friday Club! Practical groupings of people are great, and no longer useful groupings are not great.


Aloha nui loa! Mahalo! <shaka!>

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:

Guest wrote:

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
How can an ethnicity be superior?

(I have my own answer to that, but I'm after yours.)

Aloha!

There are several ways that an ethnic group may claim to be superior to another. Some of these may be true, others are always false.

The most common form of superiority that people claim is intrinsic superiority. This claim is that one ethnic group is more valuable or worth more that another group. This is the claim that they are better simply for being who they are. There is never any evidence to support the notion of intrinsic superiority, it is simply assumed. I do not believe that there even can be any evidence in favour of intrinsic superiority. Rather, I believe the words of Thomas Jefferson included in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. More that that, I believe the doctrine of the Bible that men are created in the image and likeness of God. According to this doctrine, all claims of intrinsic superiority must be false.

I agree with all of that EXCEPT the niggling point that "all men" (read as "all individual persons") are created "equal", where "equal" means "of equal fitness to excel in every circumstance". No two people are ever created equal in that respect, but they ARE created equal with regards to their "dignity of person-ness",.. which I personally think is what Jefferson was getting at, as well as what "in the likeness of God" means.

A second claim is one of material superiority. This is simply the claim that one ethnic group has more or better stuff than another. Although this is often debatable, it is sometimes so manifestly true that it hardly needs to be said. Material superiority is often used as evidence to support the claim of intrinsic superiority, but I cannot see the logic of this.

Material things do not attach to "ethnicity". They attach to individuals. That a superiority of "stuff" happens to reside with individuals within a particular "ethnicity" is simply coincidence.

A third claim related to the second is one of strategic superiority. That is that one ethnic group has a strategic, tactical, or military advantage over another ethnic group. Because nations sometimes win wars against other nations, it is evident that some nations do in fact have a strategic advantage.

A technological superiority is just a special case of "material/stuff" superiority. Once again, it attaches to individuals and not to "ethnicity".

Even "cultural superiority", which does exist but which is never "culture wide" and always consists of select bits of "culture", is a special case of "material/stuff" superiority.

A third type of superiority often claimed is genetic superiority. Although this claim is often made without any basis whatsoever, it can sometimes be true in particular traits. For example, people of Irish descent are more likely to have genetic propensity for thyroid and adrenal problems; these traits result in a lower metabolism which provided an advantage for surviving the Irish Potato Famine, but is a disadvantage for most other purposes. Other genetic traits can less clear: for example, the Irish propensity for relatively pale skin (compared to many groups) may be an advantage in Ireland, but it becomes a disadvantage in the Australian desert. In the end, there are so many genetic traits (and so many of them can be both good and bad in different contexts) that it is impossible and responsible to say that any ethnic group is absolutely genetically superior to any other.

How do genetics define ethnicity? It/they doesn't/don't. This is probably where I'd get the most push-back in my "thesis"! <chuckle!>

Ethnicity is simply a very convenient catchall category. It is used wisely quite often, and unwisely somewhat more often. It is used to divide, both for good and for evil. Do I believe in ethnicity? Yes. Is it simply a tool for groups to use to "get things done"? Yes. Like any other tool, can it be used for good or ill? Yes.

A fourth way that an ethnic group sometimes claims to be superior to another is moral superiority. This claim asserts that one ethnic group has a higher moral conduct than another. This is by far the most complicated one to evaluate. Some would claim morality is entirely culturally dependent and that because of this no culture can be morally superior to another. But this argument is not only contrary to the Bible, but it is difficult to support when confronted with such flagrantly immoral things as rape or murder. If one accepts a standard of absolute morality, it becomes clear that some vices run more heavily in some ethno-cultural groups than in others. For example, some practice cannibalism, some don't. Some practice infanticide, some don't. However, the ethnic groups that abstain from some vices by participate more in others. Additionally, even the statistics that measure which crimes are commit more often by which race of people are usually fiercely debated. Because of these reasons, moral superiority of one ethnic group over another is very difficult to prove.

These are some of the ways that one ethnicity may claim to be superior to another. I look forward to your response.

Morality is simply another "technology", and therefore just a sub-special case of a "material/stuff" which attaches to individuals within a society/culture.

Those who use "ethnicity", or "race", never ever know what they're talking about. Those terms should be avoided with extreme prejudice, as they are just "meaningful" enough to be useful and just "vague" enough to be dangerous.

I believe in cultures. I believe in nations. I believe in the Donuts on Friday Club! Practical groupings of people are great, and no longer useful groupings are not great.


Aloha nui loa! Mahalo! <shaka!>

IQ matters. To say the it doesn't is only political correctness. Why is it that resource rich African and Latin American countries are such impoverished hell holes? Why is Canada a wealthy country and Venezuela filled with starving people? IQ.

Race matters. IQ matters. Culture matters.

Political correctness means ignoring the obvious.

Common sense wrote: > IQ matters. To say the it doesn't is only political
> correctness. Why is it that resource rich African and Latin
> American countries are such impoverished hell holes? Why is Canada
> a wealthy country and Venezuela filled with starving people? IQ.

> Race matters. IQ matters. Culture matters.

> Political correctness means ignoring the obvious.

So does that mean that it's "obvious" and "common sense" that
China will win the next war?

John wrote:

Common sense wrote: > IQ matters. To say the it doesn't is only political
> correctness. Why is it that resource rich African and Latin
> American countries are such impoverished hell holes? Why is Canada
> a wealthy country and Venezuela filled with starving people? IQ.

> Race matters. IQ matters. Culture matters.

> Political correctness means ignoring the obvious.

So does that mean that it's "obvious" and "common sense" that
China will win the next war?

Face it JohnX Americans will not fight the next war in the name of race-mixing and globalistic decadence. There won't be a war with China (or Russia for that matter) IF the boomers allow a NUCLEAR strike on North Korea. If the Boomer worldview of Americans always standing for human rights everywhere is how Americans see themselves at the deepest level, How come implementation of boomer Ideals requires so much coercion. Boomers can't claim they are governing within the bounds of the constitution because everyone knows they haven't been. Boomer ideologues and academics know that if they governed within the dictates outlined in the constitution, their ideals could never be implemented because no one else would vote and support them. IQ and technological development are the determinants of superiority and inferiority.

Regarding the Social Policy of China. The PRC is a communist state, their program is forced implementation of equal rights between ethnic groups within china, the CCP also forcibly implements women's rights within the CCP administration. Therefore in the case of a China Vs West war in 4T conditions the Chinese side would probably implement "anti-racist" propaganda and forced policy vs Nationalist policy being implemented in the West. JohnX's delusion of a Pro-racist/"race-realist" china vs an anti-racist west is a boomer motivated ideological delusion. The average Chinese on the street generally has a darker-skin tone than the average westerner.

Cynic Hero 86 wrote:

John wrote:

Common sense wrote: > IQ matters. To say the it doesn't is only political
> correctness. Why is it that resource rich African and Latin
> American countries are such impoverished hell holes? Why is Canada
> a wealthy country and Venezuela filled with starving people? IQ.

> Race matters. IQ matters. Culture matters.

> Political correctness means ignoring the obvious.

So does that mean that it's "obvious" and "common sense" that
China will win the next war?

Face it JohnX Americans will not fight the next war in the name of race-mixing and globalistic decadence. There won't be a war with China (or Russia for that matter) IF the boomers allow a NUCLEAR strike on North Korea. If the Boomer worldview of Americans always standing for human rights everywhere is how Americans see themselves at the deepest level, How come implementation of boomer Ideals requires so much coercion. Boomers can't claim they are governing within the bounds of the constitution because everyone knows they haven't been. Boomer ideologues and academics know that if they governed within the dictates outlined in the constitution, their ideals could never be implemented because no one else would vote and support them. IQ and technological development are the determinants of superiority and inferiority.

No soldier fights for anything other than "trying to not be killed". Armies are arrayed (by their command structure) so that the individual soldiers have a binary choice: Stay alive by killing the enemy, or die through lack of support from their side.

I do wish you'd elaborate a bit as to who these "boomers" actually are. You seem to be conflating several "things" into this boogeyman you call "boomers".

We have agreement that aggregate IQ (times population count) and tech level is the "usual" determinant of any "battle" between cultures, but over-reliance on the emotionality of "certain hot heads", such as your delightful self, can disproportionately back-down the aggregate IQ of an otherwise "smart" culture into "loser" territory.

You might want to study a few of the blitherings of Jordan "Big Jordo" Peterson to correct your "logic", and be more of an asset to your "culture".

..though, perhaps your "culture" deserves to lose?

Aloha! <shaka!>

Cynic Hero 86 wrote:...
JohnX's delusion of a Pro-racist/"race-realist" china vs an anti-racist west is a boomer motivated ideological delusion. The average Chinese on the street generally has a darker-skin tone than the average westerner.

What "ideology" is John exhibiting?

..and melanin count in skin means what, exactly, in relation to the mythical "average westerner"?