Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
Also, no one is prevented from discussing group behavior or characteristics. Smoking rates, eating habits, voting behavior, incidences of disease, and a million other things vary statistically by demographic. In limited cases -- for example, the incidence of certain diseases -- the explanation is mostly genetic. None of this is remotely controversial.
Without guardrails, I am 99% certain that Luciom would start arguing that most behaviors or traits he views as negative are intrinsic to group status--that is, hardwired. That is the starting point for various forms of noxious scientific racism. And that is exactly the road that we are not going to traverse.
MAN IT IS CONTROVERSIAL among the people who agree with you politically, maybe you don't want to see it, or admit it, or you are actually shielded by that because of the niche of smart center-left people you interact with that shields you from the beliefs of the masses that allow democrats to win, and their ringleaders in academia, in the media and so on.
And in literature all behavioural traits are inheritable (ofc, often by smallish percentages). All of them , not controversial among genetists. As we know it's the case for all mammals as well (and we know well before we knew what DNA is).
Everything desirable or not you can measure in human beings is at least somewhat inheritable. That isn't going to change depending on personal preferences.
But most of all that doesn't mean "scientific racism", rather the opposite. Because if some groups have worse outcomes for stuff outside their control *they deserve more help* in a personal responsibility moral framework (ie the normal moral framework of the right) than if it's "nurture" alone, because if it's nurture alone it's *their fault* they have worse outcomes.
And also it's very often not about race anyway. Poor "whites" are self-sorted genetically as well
Why can't you see the latter corollary as obvious, is beyond me.