3 ms·
To be clear, you're claiming that Europeans are genetically superior to Africans?
by rthomas6 12y ago
To be clear, you're claiming that Europeans are genetically superior to Africans?
- kazagistar 12y agoThe conclusion "colonization is beneficial" might have supporting evidence, even if the cause (genetics) was grossly incorrect.
- millermp12 12y agoSo basically the genetic term, outside of individuals and perhaps families, is always, as a matter of moral principal, negligibly close to zero? Because...?
- devnonymous 12y agobecause, correlation does not imply causation. If after some thought you don't understand what this means, you unfortunately never will.
- Jach 12y agoCorrelation is not causation, and correlation does not logically imply causation, but correlation is evidence of causation [1] which in a looser English context could be taken as a sort of implication. Many correlations aren't worth digging into, but others are, so you can't just dismiss all of them outright with "correlation doesn't imply causation." [1] http://oyhus.no/CorrelationAndCausation.html http://oyhus.no/CorrelationAndCausation.html
- devnonymous 12y agoPlease do not consider comments out of context and reply. That's just ...bad form. In the context of the comment I was replying to, my reply was just a simple way of saying that beyond the scope of direct genetic influence (a.k.a: outside of individuals and perhaps families, as the comment put it) attributing genetic causation to observed phenomenon is simple correlation. Well, that's all I have to contribute.
- verroq 12y agoHe's claiming white domination generally resulted in a better standard living. Like how income equality doesn't necessary mean everyone is worse off. Even if the rich get a bigger slice of the pie, the pie may get bigger, thus standard of living is higher for everyone.
- omonra 12y agoYou can no more be genetically superior than just 'better'. It's a meaningless proposition since it doesn't specify 'better at what'.