creating "social policies" that "help one group exploit their strengths" is an extremely slippery slope to social eugenic practices.
And again, it's common knowledge that there are differences between races. There's nothing wrong with saying that. It's scientifically demonstrable. We identify race from bone structure.
Again, though, your argument is that one race is inherently superior to another. And that we need to create "social programs" to allow them to better exploit that. In those two arguments, you are dangerously wrong. If one race of the human species is inherently and genetically superior to others, wouldn't it be in the best interests of the human species that we exploit that as a whole and breed for those most desirable qualites? And breed out the less desirable ones? If there is a genetically inherent "flaw" in a person, wouldn't it be in our best interests as a species to not allow them to reproduce? Or at least isolate their reproduction to others that are "flawed"? We wouldn't want to hurt the positive genes flowing through non-flawed members of the species, right? If the argument is that each race is superior to others IN CERTAIN AREAS, then shouldn't we be trying to cross-breed races for the maximum positive? We could have the inherent strength of a black, the inherent intelligence of an asian, the inherent leadership skill of a nordic. We'll have to breed some central american industrialism in there, though, to counter-act the inherent lazyness of the black genes. Then we can create some kind of "master race" that can lead us into a new Golden Age of Humanity.
Sounds great, right?
Last edited by NOVAbimmer; 01-20-2011 at 12:19 AM.