As I say, you may be right he should not be acquitted, but he probably will be anyway, but its not really a big issue for me. what is a big issue with me is that I have to live with people mouthing off about their rights all the time as if they were given the rights because they are entitled to them.

If they are mouthing off about infringements on their liberty, they clearly are not entitled to them from a philosophical stance, because that is not why they were given the rights in the first place.
It seems to me highly ironic that Locke conceived a society for us where we could be better judged by God and act for the greater good, and people use those rights to complain about racial prejudice against them.

Given that you totally ignored that point, and were only interested in arguing about a system of justice which as I already stated was flawed, I dont see you are capable of understanding my point.

I dont think its your fautl. It seems to be a cultural prejudice against trtuth that has become so deep, its irreparable, and thats why I think its time for the USA to end as a democracy.

The entire nation is insane. It has no idea why it is doing what it is doing, acting on primcipals it destroyed by removing God from the basis of its law, and is lurching along like a Frankenstein. What uis remarkable is that one can see thousand sof posts now on the horrific wrong done to this man when in fact the rights claimed to justify protecting his life are not honored for the purpose they were given. We have taken a beautiful theory that no one even cares to think about and twisted it into a selfish ghoul, then parrot on in dead and mechanical ways about how we are entitled to things in a dead parody of actual thought.

Do a little preliminary online research. There is no race, and the idea that black runners are faster for some "racial" reason is extremely problematic. For one thing, and certainly not the last thing, what is black?

Well my birth certirficate is here so I can now get a passport and leave you people to kill each other. Have a nice day.

Be good enough to get on with it.

The reason blacks are faster is because they have I think on average a higher amount of fast twitch muscles. That's just the case. I'm pretty sure even sociologists accept this explanation. Of course there are plenty of slow blacks too.

Do you have an alternative explanation for why blacks dominate sprinting?

From memory blacks have greater or bigger bone structure than whites, which means they can carry more muscle. This is also the reason they don’t make great swimmers.

Higher bone density, more fast twitch muscle fiber. Thats where the better average athletics come from for blacks.

I feel like there’s almost a determined effort by some to insist that there’s no difference between blacks and whites because it might unleash something uncontrollable. It does seem a little disingenuous to insist or pretend there’s no difference. And how can we address the issue successfully if it’s not addressed honestly? Even within the confines of law and social mores blacks have quite obviously developed a culture of their own so much different from white culture generally. Culture would suggest deep seated attitudes and experience that lie behind the forms it takes: music, dance, language, etc. so there is obviously a difference. Part of what makes America so interesting is the influence of black culture. In those areas where things are shared the coexistence seems to happen naturally. Why and how does that happen?

Just look at the articles on-line. They should cure you-all of any parish-pump ideas that all this is in any way a simple topic. Or are you going to mention natural rhythm in your next post?

You can't have race if there is no race. And your great-grandfathers theories don't cut it any more. And if you want to continue, answer my question above: what is black?

They should cure you-all of any parish-pump ideas that all this is in any way a simple topic. — tim wood

In no way am I suggesting this is a simple topic. But I personally would like to look at the issue through genuine ideas of difference.

Edit: and what is black is probably right in front of us.

Well everybody knows what Im talking about when I say “black” or “asian” or “white” races, so its obviously a useful categorisation. Useful categorisations are useful because they are based on something real. Denying that categorisations existence is silly. To argue that race isnt a scientific term of some kind is to argue against a strawman. Most people use race to refer to these categories except (as far as I can tell) racists and people who are obsessed with racists/race.
It seems obvious to me that what people arguing race doesn't exist are actually concerned about how people interpret the differences in race. Their problem is actually with people who think that differences in race have any meaning or bearing on ones humanity or value. Racism. Thats the fear, which should be obvious but some people get silly and try to commit to race not existing. Social and environmental conditions that resulted in certain cultural and biological differences...that exists, and that's basically what people mean when they use the term “race”. The people who do not are the racists and the people who think everybody is a racist.

Useful categorisations are useful because they are based on something real. — DingoJones

Exactly. And how can we move forward when every generation has to stop and argue and redefine every group of people. Which has happened so badly that now everything is stopped in its tracks over the meaning of a word. There’s no moving forward in that.

There are two possible reasons for people refusing to accept that black exists: one that they are compensating for their own uneasiness with other races, or that race is a tool for other agendas.

If someone refuses to admit that their are differences of race then it seems to me they’re denying the other race the autonomy to be what they are. What are they meant to be instead of that, what we claim they are?

Edit: and what is black is probably right in front of us. — Brett

Meaning?

Well everybody knows what I'm talking about when I say “black” or “asian” or “white” races, — DingoJones

No they don't.

Useful categorisations are useful because they are based on something real. — DingoJones

Do you know any history whatsoever at all?

If someone refuses to admit that their are differences of race — Brett

If you had any interest in the topic at all, you'd have noted the proposition, "There is no such thing as race." And if you disagreed with it you might have undertaken even the least Google search and come up with a barge-full of references which make it clear that race is a word that has lost its meaning. So the question to you: what is race? Your word; what does it mean?

So the question to you: what is race? Your word; what does it mean? — tim wood

This seems reasonable;

“ Human races are distinguished by anthropologists on the basis of anthropometric traits. Geneticists delineate the races on the basis of gene frequenciesshared within the group and as different from other “racial” populations. The classification of “races” is compounded by social and cultural factors. The main human races are Caucasoid, Mongoloids (including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and American Indians, etc.), and Negroid. Khoisanoids or Capoids (Bushmen and Hottentots) and Pacific races (Australian aborigines, Polynesians, Melanesians, and Indonesians) may also be distinguished.” https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-6754-9_7931

And if you disagreed with it you might have undertaken even the least Google search and come up with a barge-full of references which make it clear that race is a word that has lost its meaning. — tim wood

It may have lost its meaning but it appears genes aren’t listening.

I think the root of it is identity politics. Thats the conversation that needs to happen before discussing race. Without that lense the issues get much more clear and easy to parse.

That’s why it goes around in circles.

The statistics of the higher likelihood of black people being killed over white people shows that there is systemic racism in play. If that is because crime rates are higher in black communities, that is not counter to that conclusion, but supporting the existence of systemic racism, since being black is not the reason for higher crime rates. — Christoffer

Those are not the statistics. You have to remember there are two different stats - how many vs rate. More whites are killed than blacks, but relative to population more blacks are killed. If it were truly racism, then blacks would be at the top of both stats, but they aren't. You have to account for things like this. You can't just compartmentalize your statistics if you want to really acknowledge the truth of the problem so that you can get at a solution. Otherwise, you wouldn't be intellectually honest.

There are also the stats that show blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. It's not racist to say that. It's doing the same thing you're doing to show that cops are racist - using statistics. The difference is that it doesn't necessarily follow that black deaths at the hands of the police is a consequence of racism, if there are other possible reasons for being killed by police, like there are if you are white. Why blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population isn't linked to their skin color. It is linked to a common feature of a deprived family dynamic that exists in all races and produces the same result in all races - poverty and the inability to move upward economically.

Can you just watch "The 13th Amendment" documentary and return here please. See that and then return with some counter-argument to it. It perfectly describes the underlying systemic racism at play in US society.

It's important to be skeptical, but if you don't even attempt to take part in the perspective that argues there is systemic racism in play and concludes there to not be enough evidence, you are just ignorant. You've been provided with enough. — Christoffer

Why don't you go and find the evidence that shows that the vast majority of blacks in prison don't deserve it for what they were found guilty of. Some of them were found guilty by black jurors, prosecuted by black lawyers, and sentenced by black judges. It's so easy to shout, "Racism" when you ignore so many facts.

Are there instances where racism did play a role, yes, but those instances aren't as common as you're claiming them to be. You have been programmed to see racism everywhere there is an instance where the skin color is different, as if that could be the only reason for the conflict.

What percentage of blacks that are in prison are innocent, given that you know all the facts of each case?

Racial discrimination is a form of discrimination. The ability to discriminate is essential to staying alive - and this is just trivial. Racial discrimination, then, means at first cut that I, we all, are equipped with some metrics for telling differences between individuals. Insofar as we do, we're racists. Of course "racism" has a related and much darker meaning - again, obvious and trivial. So why be pedantic? Because what gets lost in the shuffle is the significance of part of what we do being part of, and a necessary part of, our DNA. — tim wood

Then you're saying that even blacks are racist. Are blacks exhibiting their racism (there metrics for telling differences between individuals) by accusing all whites and police of being racist?

Noticing distinctions isn't racist. If it were then accepting diversity is racist. Focusing on your skin color as a defining part of your identity would be racist. Black Lives Matter would be racist, and All Lives Matter isn't. So you definition seems to be in conflict with previous statements that you have made.

Noticing distinctions isn't racist. We notice the distinctions in the color of our eyes, but we don't associate any causal relationship between people with blue eyes performing better on the job. We don't hire more people with blue eyes than those with brown eyes. Hazel eyes don't run faster than blue eyes. There are no causal links between these physical characteristics and someone's job or running performance. Noticing eye color is only useful in certain contexts, like describing someone to someone else that has never met the person you're describing.

The same goes with skin color. Skin color is just another type of variation within the human genome. Racism is a category error where one's skin color is inferred to have a casual relationship with some other characteristic where it doesn't - like one's performance on the job or on the track, or in this case - that if you have white skin then your white skins makes you hate blacks. If that were the case, then do we really have any control over ourselves, if it is our skin color that makes us do what we do, and not our minds and how they interpret things, then what would the solutions be to solve racism?

The quote below is representative of what I take to be the fact of the matter as presented in many, many papers. My search is "Is there any such thing as race?" if you care to take a look. You and many others are in the grip of an old belief now and for at least some forty years exploded by the science. I say the idea has you intentionally. It's not originally your idea. Like everyone else over a certain age you were inculcated with it, steeped in it, trained in it. But can you now grow out of it?

Your citation refers to "Human races are distinguished by anthropologists on the basis of anthropometric traits." Do you know what this - these words - means? I'll help you.

anthropology
noun
the study of human societies and cultures and their development.

anthropometric
adjective
of or relating to the scientific study of the measurements and proportions of the human body.
"dental records often lack information on basic anthropometric measures such as height and weight"

Or, that is, in your study race is a matter of behaviour as understood by the length of the thigh-bone. This is "science" that hit its peak in the mid-nineteenth century. "Science" in quotes because its purposes were never scientific.

------------------
"In combating this increase in racism, there are two primary aspects to consider. The first is that the very idea of “race” is a lie: as the American Society of Human Genetics, the largest professional organization of scientists in the field, explained in an essay:

“The science of genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories”; and it “challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research.” In other words, “race itself is a social construct,” with no biological basis.

In 2014, more than 130 leading population geneticists condemned the idea that genetic differences account for the economic, political, social and behavioral diversity around the world. In fact, said a 2018 article in Scientific American, there is a “broad scientific consensus that when it comes to genes there is just as much diversity within racial and ethnic groups as there is across them.” And the Human Genome Project has confirmed that the genomes found around the globe are 99.9 percent identical in every person. Hence, the very idea of different “races” is nonsense.

A second problem, as cognitive scientist George Lakoff has shown, is that simply using the word “race,” even when criticizing racism, actually reinforces the false belief that human beings belong to fundamentally different groups. That’s because the more a word is used, the more that certain brain circuits are activated and the stronger that metaphor becomes.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-concept-of-race-is-a-lie/
------------------------

Race is now a term properly thrown the trash-bin of historical embarrassments, properly understood today as a one-word lie. Racist, on the other hand, is a term both current and meaningful: meaning the he (or she) as the one who propagates the lie.

Then you're saying that even blacks are racist. — Harry Hindu

*sigh* No, just that discrimination is a characteristic of human behaviour - also of most other living things. But there is no point in repeating my post. Its just above where you can re-read it. And perhaps with the hint I've just given, understand it better.

The same goes with skin color. Skin color is just another type of variation within the human genome. Racism is a category error where one's skin color is inferred to have a casual relationship with some other characteristic where it doesn't - like one's performance on the job or on the track, or in this case - that if you have white skin then your white skins makes you hate blacks. — Harry Hindu

And here we can agree!

I like what you're saying here but I don't think the world is ready to hear it. Maybe in another 100 years.

Skin color is just another type of variation within the human genome. Racism is a category error where one's skin color is inferred to have a casual relationship with some other characteristic where it doesn't - like one's performance on the job or on the track, or in this case - that if you have white skin then your white skins makes you hate blacks.

I don't think it's skin color strictly speaking, but why do blacks dominate on the track? The most straight-forward, common reason relates to the quantity of fast-twitch muscle fibers and bigger bone structure we see in black athletes.

If you someone wants to deny this then I guess they'd need to argue that white runners, hispanic, runners, and asian runners apparently just don't work as hard or it's not in their culture which is stupid.

In any case it's important to look at the whole person rather than just immediately define them by a superficial aspect of them. I think that's what a lot of racism is - considering race as central to identity.

I don't think it's skin color strictly speaking, but why do blacks dominate on the track? The most straight-forward, common reason relates to the quantity of fast-twitch muscle fibers and bigger bone structure we see in black athletes. — BitconnectCarlos

Nah man. Even if there were genetic propensities, they don't explain variation like that. Reasons are cultural.

How do Jamaicans do it? It’s not because of genetics, as some claim. A vast majority of Jamaicans’ ancestors are from West Africa, which has relatively few outstanding sprinters. Nor can genetics explain why Jamaicans outperform other blacks in the Americas, especially in Brazil, which has 36 times as many of them.

Ask a Jamaican like me (I was born and raised there), and we’ll give you a very different answer: Champs. Officially called the Inter-Secondary Schools Sports Association Boys and Girls Athletics Championship, Champs is an annual competition attended by 30,000 wildly enthusiastic fans. Jamaica is perhaps the only country in the world where a track and field meet is the premier sporting event.

But it’s not just Champs. The competition is one part of a broader framework — track and field is huge at every educational level, with periodic regional meets drawing athletes of all ages from the most remote rural areas. So the real question is, why is Jamaica nuts for track?

Part of the answer is institutional. The British first introduced organized and informal athletics, and interscholastic competition, to Jamaica and other colonies in the late 19th century. One of Jamaica’s founding fathers, N. W. Manley, was the greatest student athlete of his generation; later, as the revered head of state, he tirelessly promoted track and field.

We clearly live in a world where Indians have a cricket gene, Americans have a lacrosse gene...

The African Pygmies are black so they must be great basketball players. That's my essentialist logic and I'm sticking to it...

It's funny how that institutional history is always blotted out in favour of some pseudo-science masquerading as hard nosed facts, peddled by the ignorant. You posted, a long time ago, a great pair of videos on race, genetics, and... racing. Might you be able to find and post them again? That's where I learnt about the Jamaican running legacy.

Watch both parts, part 1 is mostly an intro.

That's the one!

Just a thought, but wouldn’t comparing statistics from countries other that America provide some perspective in all of this? If the issue in America is systemic, then it’s statistics regarding black people and issues like poverty, crime rate, police killings, etc. would be statistically significantly different, right?

BTW, I haven’t been able to keep up with every post in this thread, so if this has already been posted, direct me to it.

Those are a couple of great and masterful videos. They should be shown in every school each year.

Take a look at the top 100m sprinters in the world. They come from all over the world - not just Jamaica, but also the US, Canada, Africa, even Great Britain and France. It's actually a relatively diverse group from various cultures.

Do you know what they all have in common though? I shouldn't even have to say this because you already know.

By all means, lets look at the list for the 200m record holders or 400m record holders.

Did you watch the videos?