Question: Can racism and superstition be "logical"?

[skooooo]

This came up in another thread, and I'm intrigued by the question.

I think that by definition racism and superstition are NOT logical. Others have stated that they can be logical.

Anyone want to put in their 2-cents?

[knowbody0]

1. when you are the only non white

you feel racist and lonely, then you become supersticious and want to flee.

[Terran]

4. That's a joke, right? n/t

[alonso_quijano]

2. Logical, but incorrect

You could draw racist/superstitious conclusions from flawed premises, for example. You could also draw them from premises that were correct, but incomplete.

In these cases, the racism/superstition would be logical (for any reasonable definition of 'logical'); it would also be incorrect.

[skooooo]

5. So what matters are the assumptions..

..or like in geometery, the theorems and axioms?

[alonso_quijano]

9. yup

That's pretty much the only way of getting bad results from good logic. Whatever you take as axiomatic had better be rock solid, or there's no telling what kind of crap will come out of the other end of the logic machine.

And as other people have pointed out, you can of course get bad results from bad logic.

[Terran]

3. Are the two supposed to be related?

Just asking.

I believe that racism is irrational in nature, and therefore it has no logic outside of the skewed thinking of the racist individual. They may see it as logical, but it is objectively not logical.

I know someone who has told me they thought it possible that white racism is grounded in racial memory of the apparent stuggle between homo sapiens and the Neanderthal in Europe many millenia ago. The idea is, this extremely ancient and truly "racial" conflict is the reason why so many white people seem to fear people who aren't like themselves. If such a thing were true, than I suppose there would be a certain logic behind racism, although it would be obsolete logic.

As for supersition, that's kind of a loaded question. "Superstition" implies, to me, a superior knowledge that a person's beliefs are invalid. But when it comes to things metaphysical, I hesitate to discount anything out of hand. Superstitions could be their own type of racial memories, or Jung's spiritus mundi at work. If that were so, they would have their own logic as well.

[DrWeird]

6. Yes.

Don't confuse logic and truth.

One could make the argument:

"Because there are more blacks in prison then whites, this proves that black people are more violent and criminal."

This is racist and logical. It is, however, not truthful.

Here's another example:

"Jews/christians/hindus don't go around blowing up buildings and slaughtering children. Therefore muslims should be targeted on no-fly lists"

This is bigoted, and logical. It is, however, false.

[skooooo]

11. I don't think your first statement is logical...

..the one about more blacks in prison, etc. I wouldn't say that is logical at all. I don't think you are entering honestly into the discussion either, so I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

I should say neither of your statements are logical. They aren't.

[DrWeird]

23. How is it illogical?

Logic:

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.

3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour

How is the first statement substantially different then the second? The second is almost a direct quote from what you said in that other thread. Were you being illogical?

"I don't think you are entering honestly into the discussion either, so I'm not going to respond to you anymore."

I'm trying to be entirely honest. I have not tried to deny anything I've said or pretend I did not say it. I've taken nothing out of context. If you're being so honest why are you running away from valid criticism?

[skooooo]

27. These statements are illogical --

"Because there are more blacks in prison then whites, this proves that black people are more violent and criminal."

This is illogical because it assumes that everyone who commits violent crime gets caught, is fairly tried and found guilty, and receives a just sentence. That isn't true. It's also illogical because it assumes that all (or most) black people in prison are there because of violent crimes, which also isn't proven.

-----

The second statement you wrote, and, by the way, you dragged in from another thread (after thoroughly distorting it) is also illogical for many of the same reasons.

So what is your "valid criticism"? I don't see any. Do you feel some need to "criticise" me?

[DrWeird]

30. No distortion at all.

I believe I changed "flew planes into buildings" into "blew up buildings" and maybe one or two insignificat changes. The nature of what you said remains unchanged, it's right there for everybody to see.

""Because there are more blacks in prison then whites, this proves that black people are more violent and criminal."

This is illogical because it assumes that everyone who commits violent crime gets caught, is fairly tried and found guilty, and receives a just sentence. That isn't true. It's also illogical because it assumes that all (or most) black people in prison are there because of violent crimes, which also isn't proven."

You're confusing bad logic with bad assumptions. like I said, it's valid logic even though it is false.

"So what is your "valid criticism"? I don't see any. Do you feel some need to "criticise" me?"

You made a thoroughly bigoted statement. I hope you could learn to keep from making this mistake instead of just pretending you didn't make it.

Denial's not just a river in Egypt.

[skooooo]

33. ok whatever..

..if you want to think me a biggot, then think me a biggot. I really dont' give a crap. Bye.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. :) Passive aggressive

[Character Assassin]

71. Well, as my buddy Humper the Rabbit always sez.....

"Hey, you gonna finish that?!?"

No, wait... may it was "Hey, you wanna go drinking?"

Ah, hell, I think he used to say something.

[gpandas]

56. where did you get the four points?

my dictionary does not agree with these... ah,er...postulates.

[K-W]

85. Those aren't logical arguments.

There are more blacks in prison than whites.
therefore
Black people are more violent and criminal than whites.

This is flawed logic. The conclusion does not logically follow from the facts.

Had you expounded on that argument you could have created a logical argument that was not true because of bad assumptions, but you didnt.

All people in prison are violent and criminals.
Violent people and criminals all have an equal chance of getting into prison.
Blacks have a higher rate of incarceration than whites.
Therefore, Black people are more violent and criminal than white people.

This is a logical argument, the conclusion is supported structurally. And clearly the problem with the argument is not the logic, but the fact that the assumptions are wrong.

[0007]

86. More men are in prison than women does that makes women smarter?

[jpgray]

7. You may construct a valid argument for racism, but not a sound one

You can construct a valid racist argument, wherein if the premises are true the conclusion must be true:

-A black person has committed crime
-If one member of a race does something, all members of that race do it
=Therefore all black people commit crimes

If you assume the premises there to be true, it's a valid argument. However it is not sound, because the second premise isn't true. It isn't the case that if one member of a race does something, all members of that race do it also. For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises, and true premises can never yield a false conclusion. For an argument to be sound, the argument has to be valid and the premises have to be true.

So most racial arguments are valid, but they aren't sound.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. Thanks..which is why when the poster justified racial profiling

since "muslims" flew planes into buildings on 9/11, she and another poster were called on it. You just brilliantly demonstrated why racial profiling is racist.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. Your words on the other thread speak for themselves

as did your advocacy of the other poster...want me to copy and paste them here?

[skooooo]

59. you're being overly emotional and assigning meanings ..

...where there are none, or misinterpreting what I say. This is evident by the fact that you personally attacked me later in this thread. I started this thread to take up the issue in a more constructive way. Honestly, I don't care what you think about me, and if I'm such a terrible person, maybe you shouldn't spend your time talking to me.

[noiretextatique]

65. i do

:hi: this logic slope is far too slippery. i'd love to know what this is all about, since i missed the related thread.

[DrWeird]

67. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=870568&mesg_id=870568

IMHO, a couple of people stuck their feet in their mouths so they hijacked the thread with a semantic argument.

[noiretextatique]

70. thanks, DrWeird

:puke:

[Forkboy]

79. How could I have missed that thread?

That poster is always a fun guy.He LOVES Muslims!!!

[Character Assassin]

74. What's this I hear about you being overly emotional?

Dammit, woman!

[MsUnderstood]

8. I believe that most superstition and racism came from logic

For example, (unless this is an urban myth) when people sneezed during the Middle ages, it was a sign of the plague (and sure death) so others would say "God Bless You" (ie I hope he spares your life sucka).

Now we say it with little or no meaning but it stems from the logic that if you sneeze, you have the plague, if you have the plague your gonna die, if you die, you need God on your side.

Racism origin in logic is a little harder. You have to look at Racism's kinder, gentler neighbor Stereotyping.

the only way humans could survive during the cave man era was stereotyping; for example "a big cat ate my brother. There is another big cat, it will eat me." it kept us from trying to domesticate the lion.

But as we grew up we turned some stereotyping into racism (throw in whatever your favorite racist view is here) and tried to pretend it was logical.

Yes, logic is the grandfather of racism and superstition.

[skooooo]

12. ok, but you say...

"But as we grew up we turned some stereotyping into racism (throw in whatever your favorite racist view is here) and tried to pretend it was logical."


Pretending something is logical, doesn't make it logical.

[MsUnderstood]

18. aha I didn't say racism was logical

no, but it does make you think it is logical. And logic is about perception.

For example, athesists will say "I can't believe in god because I can't see him"

Well that makes sense, right?

And spiritualists will ask "Can you see air (californians excepted)? Then how do you know air is real? So if air is real but you can't see it, then God must be real" That is logical, right?

[skooooo]

20. I would say neither of those statements are logical..

...they may be easy for someone to believe, though. Perhaps they are examples more of rhetoric and not logic?

[MsUnderstood]

24. I guess rhetoric might be a better choice

But just because you don't accept a "logical statement" doesnt mean it isn't true.

I don't know if you brough up the geometry example, but I remember that I could NEVER prove any of the postulates/axioms in geometry but they all seemed to be true. . .

Maybe it depends on your definition of logic?

[MisterP]

10. heck, I've seen scientism taken to religious extremes and

fundamentalist atheism; it's really screwball

[Lost147]

13. racism is hard to label

One group of humans from one area may excel in different things. For example, those that live in a cold environment depend on each other for survival, nothing can go wrong all the entire village might starve. Over a few ten thousand years maybe those people on average become smarter than a tribe of pacific islanders that can relax in a perfect environment with a very miniscule threat of starvation.

To say blacks as a whole are more dangerous than whites could be true or not. It cannot be tested in our culture you'd need to take 10000 whites and 10000 blacks keep them isolated in a city with extremely little outside contact and see how the society develops.

Its generally accepted that saying blacks are more dangerous than whites is racist how ever its not racist to look at LA and say, "the black population as a whole is more dangerous than the white population in this region."

[skooooo]

16. Well...I'm not sure about that.

It depends on what you're defining as "danger". It also depends on whether we can assume that there are "black" and "white" people. Personally, I think race is a social construct more than anything.

[noiretextatique]

75. it is a social construct

and "danger" is relative. one thing the rw had done well is to associate "danger" with those socially constructed as "black" and "minority," when in fact people like george bush and dick cheney and ken lay pose far more of a danger to most americans than does some gangbanger.

[noiretextatique]

66. is george bush dangerous?

are the people who support him (overwhelming white men) dangerous?
ergo...white men are far more dangerous than "the black population of LA" :eyes:

[orthogonal]

14. Of course racism can be logical

Of course it can be.

Take a hypothetical variety of racism for instance: if you agree to paint yourself blue and preferentially aid others who are painted blue, people who painted themselves red and preferentially aided red-painted people would naturally prefer to not see you in an position of power or influence, as you would use that position to aid blues (and thus hinder reds who might otherwise have gotten the benefits you preferentially give to blues).

It would also, in this case, behoove you to not only discriminate in favor of blues, but against reds, as reds in power would, perforce, discriminate against you.

At some point, tension might increase until you were legitimately physically afraid of reds, because reds would see an advantage in harming you if they could get away with doing so.

While you'd know that some reds were actually peaceful, good people, you'd have no easy way to determine which reds were good, as it would be risky to associate with any reds, because the bad ones would take advantage of you.

As you became less and less willing to take the risk of trusting a red, so reds would observe your unwillingness to "reach out", and they would be logically inclined to not risk reaching out to you.

At some point, atrocities would be committed by either side: muggings, lynchings, rapes, and eventually a state of war might exist between red and blue.

With war, with the entire survival of one group or the other as a free people undominated by their enemies at stake, even "good" reds would be honor bound, for the survival of their race/people/nation to attempt to kill and harm even blues they knew to be "good", and vice versa: surely we have seen good and honorable men fight fiercely and honorably to kill other good and honorable men, when each side feels its children and way of life at stake.

So, yes, racism can be logical, because once racism starts, the short-term benefit is to rely on a stereotype rather than pay the cost and take the risk of examining people as people and not as members of groups. In the long term, this leads to positive reinforcement of both stereotypes and inter-group enmity -- but it can be awfully hard to endure high short-term costs for even high long-term rewards.

(And honestly, if you can commit genocide or enslave the opposition, your group will, by and large and up to the last century or two, also get a high reward: witness the genocide of Khoisan and to a lesser extent pygmy peoples in Africa by Bantu peoples, or of aboriginal Americans ("Indians") in both North and South America by Europeans, or the near-genocide of Basque and Celtic peoples by Indo-Europeans and Germanic peoples in mainland Europe. Or Armenians in Turkey in 1917. Genocide and enslavement are morally wrong, but they often greatly benefit the perpetrators: ask any American farmer where he got his land.)

If I know that 9 of 10 Maori will kill me because I am Mori (and indeed the peacerful Mori were wiped out by quite intentional Maori genocide and enslavement), I'd be a fool not kill every defenseless Maori I come across -- and a Maori, reasoning that I would so reason, would be a fool not to kill me.

(I will leave the logic of superstition to the reader, but I will hint that we all desire explanatory stories, and even Newtons' physics is subtly wrong, but good enough for most purposes involving human-perceptible masses and speeds. And that the religious, according to several studies, enjoy better health than atheists.)

Given that humans form kinship and pseudo-kinship ("clan", "tribe", "people", "nation") groups, and given that humans can model and predict the actions of other humans, xenophobia and racism are perhaps inevitable.

And recall that all of history's Cains had children, and the Abels did not; it is no surprise to this atheist that the mark of Cain is a standard and fundamental part of the heritage passed down to every human.

[greekspeak]

15. Probably

Logical is not the equivalent of "true," "rational," or "sensible." You can make a logical argument that the Titanic never sank, and it be very strong deductive logic. I had to work to get an A in a logic class in college, and most people in the class failed it because they could not seperate truth and rational thought formation from logic.

[skooooo]

17. Doesn't ration and logic at least intersect??

I mean, they're not mutually exclusive necessarily. Doesn't ration depend on logic?

[greekspeak]

29. In a pure sense, I don't think logic has to be rational

Its about possible worlds. Theoreticals. Not truth or rationality.

[Taxloss]

19. No.

They can be explained by evolution, but they're not logical according to the brains evolution has now provided us with.

So that's a big NO.

Next question?

[skooooo]

21. That's what I think, no more questions...

But maybe it all has to do with context and the ability to think critically...and we know that's lacking among a lot of people.

[Taxloss]

25. That's what I want to ask racists and very superstitious people.

"What do you people really WANT? What is it that bothers you so much? Where's the itch?"

I know that's three questions. But really, they're the same question.

[sweetheart]

22. Here's the most logically ignorant i've heard...

A farmer in these scottish highlands, after a few drinks in the pub,
said that he would not breed a black sheep with white ones, as the
wool would be worth less at the market. Well, hot damned, if that
did not take the cake as the most logical pragmatic reason to avoid
interracial relationships i've ever heard.

Ignorant... well, of course... but logical.

Anyone who has been victem to silent prejudice, knows that it is
systematic, and unimpeachable by design. "We don't hate women, its
just that men are the only qualified people we've hired in the
boardroom." "Black people are fine, and they should not meddle
in the business of whom we promote and whom we don't in our
business." We've all been privy to such "logical" racism.

[skooooo]

26. Hmmm...but...

If there's no a market for "gray" (or whatever color it ends up being) wool, then the farmer is being logical and reasonable in not breeding those two colors of sheep. But where does this have anything to do with humans? Was the farmer using that as an example of why people shouldn't co-mingle? Unless he made that jump, I don't see how his statement is "ignorant" as you say.


But, yes, I see what you mean that racists apply their own skewed, hermeutically-sealed version of logic to defend their beliefs. But, that isn't what I consider true logic.

[sweetheart]

28. In the UK "irony" is standard

The farmer was clearly referring to people, and had made some
blatantly racist remarks in an adjoining conversation which i will
not repeat. His black and white sheep analogy sold well to a
community of sheep crofters (farmers).

I once visited the roommate of a black friend at texas A&M in the
early 80's. His roommate would not take a shower in the shared
bathroom (loo), as he considered the shower "tainted" by a n***er.
He also seemed rather logical, with no explanation offered about
what "tainted" the shower... but he was genuine to his beliefs
even if it meant using the gym showers (also tainted, but i din't
tell 'im).

Racism is endemic, it is beyond reason. Logic presumes a flat
surface, and life is not flat. There are multiple local maxima
in an ethical plain, and people are local. This global stuff is
hype... its time we get real.

[donco6]

31. They can be USED logically, but are essentially irrational.

Because many people ARE racist and sexist, you can use that fact in a logical way to manipulate people.

For example, Ahnold referring to California Dems as "girly-men" plays on the sexist AND homophobic tendencies of many people to accomplish his logical ends - support for his budget.

Note: I'm not making any statements about ethics here. Ahnold obviously has none.

[parkening]

32. Racism is perfectly logical

If man evolved from the lower animals, it stands to reason that certain populations of humans today are more highly evolved than others. As a result it only makes sense to:

1. avoid intermingling the genes of the lesser evolved of the species with the more evolved (diluting the gene pool),

2. give special privilege and advancement to the most highly evolved,

3. discriminate against the lesser evolved, and

4. indeed for the future advancement of the human race it only makes sense to eliminate the lesser evolved of the species altogether.

In this paradigm, diversity is an empty platitude that is a detriment to the future of the species.

I don't believe any of this is true, by the way, but I think the logic is impeccable. From the evolutionary worldview, racism only makes sense.

[kayell]

40. Only if you start from the original fallacy that some humans are less

evolved than others. So people who go this route simply "prove" logically what they started with - a racist assumption.

[skooooo]

42. Right...

Maybe people define logic in different ways. I think if you start from a false assumption and argue some point, you are not really using logic, but rhetoric. To my mind, logic has to be based in truth and begin with valid assumptions.

[parkening]

49. Logic and truth

are not necessarily related at all. A perfectly valid logical argument can be made on a subject (like my argument regarding evolution/racism) without it being true. If the argument does not contain any logical fallacies (which I don't believe mine does), then it is the dissenter's (ie. your) job to show where my premises are not true.

I don't think you can support, scientifically or otherwise, from an evolutionary viewpoint, your assertion that all populations are equally evolved.

And if you can't, you must concede all my other points are valid. Any platitudes that one can express about diversity and inclusivism and brotherhood are all vacuous. We're in a struggle for the survival of humanity, and here you are dragging the species down with your bleeding heart.

Usual disclaimer here.

[patcox2]

50. If you go around using your own defintions, you really aren't saying

anything at all.

"Logic" has nothing to do with truth. Logic is a set of rules regarding what propositions can be inferred in what circumstances from other propositions. It is not a law of the universe, it is an intellectual fabrication arising in part from inherent structures regarding language processing in our brain. Rhetoric is not separate or different from "logic." The rules of logic were actually codified by aristotle in a work titled "rhetoric."

You and many others are confusing science and logic.

The universe and reality are not inherently logical. Superstition was an effort to impose logic on a disorderly world. There was nothing more logical than the catholic church's "scholasticism" of the 13th century.

Science, in contrast, represents the mature acceptance that the world is not logical. Thats why science is empirical, it beleives what is observed, regardless of whether what is observed is logical (light is a wave and a particle, you say?).

Your own personal definition of "logic" seems to be a simplified, half understood version of scientific empiricism. But you know, its difficult to communicate with someone who makes up their own meanings for words and concepts. It defeats the logic of having a common language.

[TrogL]

47. You usually end up with circular logic

They pick things white people (for example) are good at as "progress", then claim that whites have progressed more.

[parkening]

48. Please show how

my premise that "certain populations of humans today are more highly evolved than others" is false. Certain populations, according to the theory, have been separated from others for hundreds of thousands of years; all evolving at their own pace. The only logical conclusion is that because of these disparate paces, some populations will be more highly evolved and some less.

Those with a long-range view of human evolution will only want the best genes to be passed on. The lesser evolved of the species should be weeded out. Indeed the racist commands the higher moral ground. Any comments?

I can't stress strongly enough, that this is not my view on the "races".

[gpandas]

54. which populations are more evolved...

and which less evolved? examples please.

[parkening]

57. My point is not that

there are populations that we can point to and say that these humans are more evolved and deserve special treatment at the expense of the lesser evolved.

My point is that the adherent to the evolutionary paradigm has a perfectly logical argument for being a racist. Indeed, s/he should be a racist. Being otherwise is not practicing what you believe.

I, on the other hand, believe that mankind was a special creation of God. All humans are created in the image of God. It would be a slap in the face of my Creator to say that one people-group is superior, more human, better than, more deserving of favor, etc than any other. I have a perfectly logical argument for racism being evil.

The evolutionist must, to be consistent, believe that racism is good.

[noiretextatique]

68. could it be the population that is currently destroying the earth's

atomosphere and filling it's waters with dangerous chemicals...the one that's using the lions's share of its natural resources...the one that has most of the world's wealth, yet is the smallest of the world's population?? could it be the same "evolved" population that seems intent on self-annihilation? that's not a very "highly evolved" population, though it loves to believe it is.

[kayell]

63. All your argument shows is that you don't know much about evolution

There isn't more or less evolved in the sense you are thinking of. There isn't a goal that evolution works to and that can be measured against. Evolution occurs as random mutations, some of which provide adaptations that are beneficial and lead to better survival for reproduction in a particular situation.

You can talk about evolutionary advantages such as that fair skinned people are better adapted to northern climes because their skin is better equipped to produce vitamin D in lower light conditions, or long noses give one a advantage against dry air in deserts. But you can't even say that chimpanzees or bonobos are less evolved than humans, because we split off from a common ancestor millions of years ago. We evolved in different directions. The only species you could possibly claim to be less evolved would be the common ancestor species if it was still around.

Humans ALL trace back to one single African woman 200,000 years ago. And there as been plenty of interbreeding since, any time that human groups paths crossed. To even speak of different races is fallacious from a scientific standpoint.

So again, your whole argument starts with a faulty premise and you have handily argued your way right back to the beginning.

[noiretextatique]

64. unfortunately, your argument isn't logical at all

and it makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. hint: all humans belong to the same species.

[DrWeird]

69. Technically, he's correct.

There can be variation within a species. And if by "higher evolved" he means a particular desired trait, then his argument is logically valid. Grossly incorrect, but still logically valid. Again, note his disclaimer.

[noiretextatique]

73. i was referring to his reference to some humans

as "lesser species"...that would be technically incorrect. i saw his disclaimer...i just despise these type of arguments.

[parkening]

77. My actual argument

states "the lesser of the species" which is technically correct within the evolutionary paradigm.

[noiretextatique]

78. hmm....lesser how?

aren't you referring to social constructs when you use the term "lesser of the species?" i see what you meanm, from a racist social darwinist perspective.

[parkening]

87. You need to read post #80

before you read my answer to your post. Go ahead....

We don't have any trouble understanding the phrase "lesser of the species" when we're talking about animals and plants. They're the ones with the lesser ability to survive and pass on their genes.

Once a species becomes aware of its evolution, the rules change somewhat (you read post #80, didn't you?). The darwinist (your term "racist social darwinist" is triply redundant in my opinion) must choose which traits are desirable and select for them. And sure, some of those desired traits will be physical, some temperamental, some aesthetic, and some will be social constructs.

We have assisted the darwinist in his quest to keep the less desirable traits from mixing with the more desirable. We tend to co-mingle our genes with those who have similar genetic makeup (think China and West Virginia (just kidding about WV!)).

With the proper application of social programs (forced sterilization of the mentally retarded), the darwinist government can encourage the "right" traits while weeding out the "wrong" ones.

[kayell]

76. No he isn't correct, you must not understand evolution either

Evolution does NOT select for a desired trait. That would be human breeding or selection that you are thinking of. The kind of thing that the Nazis went in for trying to breed what they thought would be a "race" of Aryan supermen. They started from the same flawed premise that this does, just like all eugenicists.

His whole argument about evolutionists being required to be racists is pure crap too, simply because he obviously lacks the most basic understanding of evolution.

Start with crap/end with crap.

[parkening]

80. Sure evolution does not select

for any desired trait because, as you've pointed out, there's no forward-looking knowledge. Through natural selection, traits that bestow a survival advantage tend to be passed on to the subsequent generations, whereas, traits that are neutral or have a negative impact on survival will gradually be eliminated (since the genes don't survive to be passed on).

That's all well and good. But it's a whole new ballgame once a species becomes aware of its own evolution (ie humans). We can now selectively breed for desirable traits. We've been doing this with plants, farm animals and pets for thousands of years. So much so that our modern pets (for instance) can no longer interbreed with the original stock. A new species has been born.

Once a species becomes aware of its evolution is it not incumbent upon that species to do what it can to ensure its survival? We can look forward and make educated guesses as to what traits will be desirable (intelligence is paramount, speed, size, strength much less important with all the automation). So for those of us who are truly concerned about the survival of our species we owe it to ourselves to weed out the undesirable traits.

This is getting long and there's so much more. Just to reiterate, once a species realizes they are evolving, the whole Blind Watchmaker view of evolution goes out the window.

Usual disclaimer.

[kayell]

83. What you are talking about has been tried before. It's called

eugenics. Who gets to decide what are "superior traits"? The Nazis thought they were eminitely qualified to do so. Do you think you are qualified?

[parkening]

88. It has been tried

here in the US when the mentally retarded were forcibly sterilized.

That's the trouble with people. Animals and plants don't mind being selectively bred. People are less receptive to the idea (although we do a pretty good job by ourselves; "inter-racial" marriage is still a very rare occurrence).

I don't believe I'm qualified to do anything like that. I would encourage you to read and comment on post #82. Just a hint about where I'm coming from: I don't believe premise 1 or 2 (making 3 irrelevant).

[parkening]

82. Thanks for the support DrWierd

but you raise an interesting point. You have agreed that my argument is logically valid (and I think you're right to think that). According to the rules of logic, since you think my conclusion is incorrect, you must disagree with one or more of my premises.

I'll reiterate my premises here:

premise 1. Humans evolved from lower species. (I'm assuming you agree with this one)

premise 2. Some populations of humans are more highly evolved than
others. (You stated in post #69 that you agree with this)

understood premise 3. Being more highly evolved is desirable. (so far you've given no opinion on this)

Since you agree with me that my argument is logically valid, you must agree with the conclusion whether you like it or not if you have no beef with the premises. That's just the rules of logic. I'm interested to know which premise(s), if any, you would dispute.

[Zero Division]

34. My two cents: different definitions of logic are being used.

The common usage of "logical" basically means reasoned and true, whereas some use "logical" to mean reasoned truthfully or falsely in one manner or another. I would guess that the latter is the philosophical/academic usage.

[gpandas]

61. too much common sense here,

watch this thread wither and die. duers only happy when nit-picking over meaningless shit. it is all about ego here. like bush, no mistakes here. "lay on mcduff and cursed be he who first cries hold." thanks, willie.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Well I see there is now a consensus for my position since it was correct

I might also add superstition can indeed be logical..Just ask St Anselm and Bertrand Russell.

In case you don't know who St Anselm was, he wrote the ontological justification for God's existance....there's logic defending superstition.

I had already demonstrated that David Horowitz's racist piece against reparations followed the rules of logic but that made it no less racist.

It pays to know what you are talking about before you tell people they are flat out wrong. ;-)

[skooooo]

36. I don't see any such consensus.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. I do

The people on this thread that know their ass from a hole in the ground have explained it rather well...the people that don't haven't.

[skooooo]

39. If it makes you feel better to insult others...

..go for it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. And telling me I was wrong void of any actual proof or knowledge of the

subject was a compliment? Yes, I am calling you out on the fact that you insulted my intelligence when in fact you don't have any grasp of the subject on which you speak. Sorry if pointing out that you spoke when you didn't know is insulting...in fact, speaking when one doesn't know what they are talking about is rather self effacing when one is caught....no?

[parkening]

53. Yikes

now we've got ad hominem (and maybe snob appeal, "Well, I certainly know my *ss from a hole in the ground, I must be right!")

[parkening]

51. You are relying on

the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

[skooooo]

58. which means....

...? I have an idea, but...

[parkening]

60. Appeal to the masses

When people use the argument that, "Many (most) people believe the moon is made of green cheese", they are trying to support their argument by saying that lots of people agree with me (which may be true). As you can see, this is a logical fallacy. They give each type of logical fallacy a fancy Latin name; this one is called Argumentum ad Populum (or appeal to the masses).

Now if you said that the majority of the astronauts that have been to the moon swear it is made of green cheese, I would have to give that serious consideration. This would not be an argumentum ad populum because the folks you're appealing to are experts in the field.

If you want to learn more about this type of thing go here. It's a kind of fun introduction to Logic.

[kayell]

37. Agreed, they are not logical, but people use self serving logic to justify

their base emotions and desires, often with such success that they fool themselves.

[JHB]

52. Of course.

They can procede logically from a false premise.

In fact, that's usually the problem: if one never thinks to question the underlying error, it can all make sense.

[Character Assassin]

72. Ding, ding, ding!!! This is the correct answer.

[ismnotwasm]

55. well

Modern day racism seems to have it's origins based on conquest i.e. the American natives, and other incidents in history. Even the British defeat of the Spanish in the 1500's added to what we know as racism. So I would say racism is about self-interest, and that self-interest also became fear of the "other". Superstition,is based on self-interest, (lucky rabbits foot) and fear (don't walk under a ladder)and often have their roots, when you can find them, in some sort of factual event. Are self-interest and fear inherently illogical? I don't think so, but obviously they can lead to horrible behavior toward others.

[Zhade]

62. No, but they can be rationalized as such.

NT!

[goodhue]

81. Yes, in the sense that "valid" arguments can be made to support them.

As many have noted, formal logic as a discipline is primarily concerned with whether a given conclusion follows from a certain set of premises. If so, then the argument is valid or "logical." However, if the premises are faulty then the argument may not be sound.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

84. Yes

Logic is a tool. All belief systems have an internal logic. Racism isn't LOGICAL when compared against actual data on IQ, penis size, or whatever. But all you have to do to make it logical is to reject the science that rejects it and replace it with something compatible.

Logic won't save us, though I've seen DUers argue to the contrary. People just need to snap out of their trance and just look at Bush, listen to him. Even a dog could tell the man is evil.