Can We Arrest Our Prejudice?

[oldbadger]

. . . Within the conceptual framework you're working in, I think most people would agree with you. ------But the premise of the first four messages in this thread is that the truth always and inevitably raises its pretty or ugly head. -----If it's true that there are superior races, and I believe it is, then as you imply, that's not fair, and seem like it would be a portent of everlasting inequality, strife, and division?

I believe it's true that there are superior people, races, religions, and ethnicities, and I believe you're correct that that will cause inevitable inequality, strife, and division. Furthermore I believe God has designed human history for the the antithesis of inequality, strife, and division?

So what gives?

In the same sense that truth always raises its pretty or ugly head, it could be said that the scientific-method, devoid of prejudicial or ideological bias, is the ladder truth often uses to raise itself up where it can be seen, understood, and applied. If we think of the problem of racial, ethnic, and religious inequality in scientific terms, accept what is true, find out why its true, how such a monster (inequality) came to be, see if anything can be changed in a fundamental and true way, only then could real change occur. Everything else is smoke-n-mirrors that will only bandage sores that in truth require antibiotics to keep then from getting infected and eventually leading to amputations.

The Bible predicts a future world where equality and fairness reign supreme. How did we get from the original Biblical design for that world, to this mess, and how do we return?

John

You have not yet offered any examples of how your prioposal could work, or where?
Here...... Let me just extend your idea logically enough and far enough to scare even you.... just a little.

Forget race, colour, nationality, gender etc and just focus upon one condition which is CERTAIN to produce advantages.......
YOUTH! Youth is healthy, costs less in medicare etc, and is at its strongest. Therefore Youth, or shall we say people with ages of less than 50 years, are the most useful folks to have in a community? I'm not much interested in the 'age brings wisdom' stuff because it has not worked very well up until now, has it?

Think of how much could be saved in Pension payouts, Hospital care, Dementia-in-the-community nursing staff, etc....

Look, it's obvious logical SCIENCE for the World to humanely put down people on their 50th birthday. No exceptions. And the world can hunt down any runners.... there's bound to be runners. I would be a runner, my friend.

Please put your idea where it belongs, in the recycle basket.

 

[buddhist]

I agree it's what it is. Nevertheless there seems to be some relationship between the historical losers, so to say, and the phallus, how it's used and thought of. That's the point of the thread.That's the premise laid out in the first few messages.

As I interpret early Buddhism, it is said that those who indiscriminately indulge in more physical pleasures to the point of unskillfulness are gravitating towards the lower animal world of instinct, and will likely be reborn in that realm or below. Those who restrain many of their physical impulses and engage in skillful behavior will likely find themselves reborn in the human or lower heavenly realms. Restraining physical impluses, engaging in skillfull behavior, and cultivating emotional-mental qualities like loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity will find themselves reborn in the middle heavenly realms. Likewise with the highest heavens and the cultivation of purity of consciousness.

The question for me is this: are those who are reborn in a lower state inextricably bound to the behaviors and choices often associated with that lower state? The answer in early Buddhism is "no". For example, because of prior unskillful behaviors, a consciousness may be reborn as an animal. Is it forever limited to animal-like instinctive behavior? No - it can still choose to reject its inborn desires and instead be loving and helpful, and gain the necessary positive kamma to be reborn as a human being or even higher in its next rebirth. Or, it can choose to follow it's inborn desires and be animalistic or even worse, and be reborn as an animal or in the hellish realms. We can see the example of many dogs who are loving, positive, and self-sacrificial; and other dogs who are

In summary, present choices made by the consciousness can override traits and lower tendencies acquired as a result of previous kamma. Choices can also be made to ignore the higher conciousness, to follow previously acquired traits and tendencies too, of course.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

. . . Are you saying that if NBA teams were each slotted to select only from one race no team would gain a meaningful advantage?



John

Nope. And to be honest, the only way you could draw that conclusion is to completely ignore what I said, instead maki g a disingenuous clarifying question to 'prove your point'.

What I said is that a team based on merit and measurement of individuals will have an advantage. If more of those ondividuals happen to be African American, who cares?

 

[Sonofason]

But what if races aren't equal? What if history and science proves they're not equal? Should we suppress that truth?



John

Let God handle it. If it should turn out that some race of people is truly inferior to all others, it is very likely that over time that species will dwindle away into extinction, because they will have a hard time finding mates. Don't let it get you down. Just work hard every day, and take care of your family, and die at the appropriate time.

 

[Sonofason]

Would it be better to suppress, or lie, if in fact there is racial, ethnic, or religious superiority (so far as economics, culture, and intellect are concerned)? In other words, should what is nice and kind and fair be truth, and what is true be suppressed if it is not nice, and fair, and kind?

Should equality be the criteria for what is true? Or should what is true be the criteria for truth even if it isn't very nice? ----- Should something be done about the New England Patriots since they're making a shambles of the league's desire for parity? Can't the commissioner decide the league wants to dock Tom Brady five more games for, well, emasculating his balls so they're not as hard.


John

Don't worry about it. If your a good guy, and you can do a better job, you should get the job. Who cares if someone is inferior to you?
I don't care about a bunch of men wearing pantyhose who like jump on top of one another, and chase balls. I have better things to do.

 

[Oeste]

Would it be fair to say that Jewish persons excel in certain skills? That they have apparent innate skills that serve them well in certain endeavors? And that the same can be said in regards to African Americans?

I think it would be fair to say that virtually everyone has a skill they can excel at. I’m not sure what being Jewish or African American has to do with it. They could be German or Japenese and still excel at it.

What if it's true, empirically, factually, and truthfully, that some races are grossly inferior (scientifically speaking)?

What do you mean “What if it’s true”? What research are you alleging “that some races are grossly inferior (scientifically speaking)"???

Can we question whether Jews, for instance, excel at so many things, and most of them related to acquisition of money, power, and prestige...

...What if some creeds and religions are grossly inferior when it comes to empirical determinations, factual determinations, on usefulness, power acquisition, or advancing society?

I know of no creed or religion that is “inferior” when it comes to advancing society. Each creed or religion has the potential to advance or hold society back, just as each individual does. Same goes for any creed or religion’s “usefulness”.

Are you alleging Jews have a penchant for "power acquisition”? Do you really expect we’ll find some “power acquisition” gene in Jews, that the rest of us don't have, if we just search hard enough? Also, which creeds and religions are we to deem inferior” or “useless”? Which creeds and religions are unable to make empirical and/or factual determinations, or does this await further “scientific inquiry”???

What if, using the scientific-method, we could determine that using history, and empirical observation as our prism, it could be shown that those peoples, nations, and civilizations, that privileged physicality over mind-work, or physical activity over religious metaphysics, have, in the aggregate, and without much question, lagged behind those peoples, nations, and civilizations who privileged religion, metaphysics, and thought-work, over physicality?

Then the world would be filled with racist bigots looking to presume a result nowhere placed in evidence, and while eugenics, physiognomy, and phrenology may have appeared as a sound science during the reign of the Third Reich, I really don’t see it passing muster here.

 

[Oeste]

Ok . . . now to the advanced question associated with a "penis theology" as it has here been shown to be of some scientific import.

Mr. Brey, can you kindly explain when and where your phrenological "penis theology" gained "scientific import"?

How can it be that if we use the scientific-method, if we throw out our prejudices, it seems that one of the participants of this forum is not so out of line to develop a theology, a metaphysics, of the phallus?

I don’t see your method as throwing prejudices out, but as a framework to throw them in.

No offense, but your reasoning reminds me of “Christian Identity”. At the very least they would be receptive to your arguments. Are you associated with them?

So, in simple terms, lets not kid ourselves that we can divide up the worlds diversity along racial, religious or gender lines and do anything but make ourselves less intellectually honest in the process.

. Are you saying that if NBA teams were each slotted to select only from one race no team would gain a meaningful advantage?

We've had teams that selected from only one "race" in America for years. Blacks weren't allowed into baseball until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, and yes, some teams have dominated baseball more than others both before and after Robinson entered the league. Who wins is based on merit, coaching, the health of the players, the ability of the franchise to attract talent, and to a smaller extent, umpires and the engagement of fans...not genetics.

But what if races aren't equal? What if history and science proves they're not equal? Should we suppress that truth?

It sounds to me like you want us to explore the possibility of Hitler’s argument regarding Jews, “Aryans” and blacks as some sort of “suppressed truth”. If so, was there some compelling study by Reich "doctors" that you believe is being hidden by modern science?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We've had teams that selected from only one "race" in America for years.
Blacks weren't allowed into baseball until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, and yes, some teams have dominated baseball more than others both before and after Robinson entered the league.

Yep. Morally, it was repugnant, but hopefully we've learnt those old lessons. From a results point of view it didn't matter much, since everyone had the same self-imposed handicap.

Who wins is based on merit, coaching, the health of the players, the ability of the franchise to attract talent, and to a smaller extent, umpires and the engagement of fans...not genetics.

Meh...genetics matters. Ian Thorpe had ridiculously large feet which helped him as a swimmer. Manute Bol had no talent and got a basketball career out of being 7'7". But so did Shawn Bradley, who was whiter than me. It wasn't their skin colour that mattered. It would be about the worst way of determining 'merit' that I can think of.

 

[Shad]

I think you're on to something good. Could you make your point a tad clearer?

I believe there's a genuine parallel between genes and memes. Memes are what I think you're referring to as "sociological (versus biological)? Jews are not purely genetic. Certain memes are required to be in the bloodstream of a person born to a Jewish mother before they're the full functioning version of a Jew.

Same with being an American. It's not really enough to be born in America, and have a citizenship. That makes you legally American (as having a Jewish biological mother makes you legally Jewish). But to really be an American, the full-functioning model, you have to have some American memes. To be a Jew, a full-functioning model, you have to have some Jewish memes.

How do memes affect genes, and vise versa? ----- That's one of the primary questions being asked in this thread. So thanks for getting it back on track.


John

I will get back to you at a later date.

 

[John D. Brey]

You have not yet offered any examples of how your prioposal could work, or where?
Here...... Let me just extend your idea logically enough and far enough to scare even you.... just a little.

Forget race, colour, nationality, gender etc and just focus upon one condition which is CERTAIN to produce advantages.......
YOUTH! Youth is healthy, costs less in medicare etc, and is at its strongest. Therefore Youth, or shall we say people with ages of less than 50 years, are the most useful folks to have in a community? I'm not much interested in the 'age brings wisdom' stuff because it has not worked very well up until now, has it?

Think of how much could be saved in Pension payouts, Hospital care, Dementia-in-the-community nursing staff, etc....

Look, it's obvious logical SCIENCE for the World to humanely put down people on their 50th birthday. No exceptions. And the world can hunt down any runners.... there's bound to be runners. I would be a runner, my friend.

Please put your idea where it belongs, in the recycle basket.

I don't see a problem with your euthanasia proposal if it made everyone's life substantially better for fifty-years. I bet you could get something like that through Congress if it didn't affect those already past, or nearing that age.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

As I interpret early Buddhism, it is said that those who indiscriminately indulge in more physical pleasures to the point of unskillfulness are gravitating towards the lower animal world of instinct, and will likely be reborn in that realm or below. Those who restrain many of their physical impulses and engage in skillful behavior will likely find themselves reborn in the human or lower heavenly realms. Restraining physical impluses, engaging in skillfull behavior, and cultivating emotional-mental qualities like loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity will find themselves reborn in the middle heavenly realms. Likewise with the highest heavens and the cultivation of purity of consciousness.

The question for me is this: are those who are reborn in a lower state inextricably bound to the behaviors and choices often associated with that lower state? The answer in early Buddhism is "no". For example, because of prior unskillful behaviors, a consciousness may be reborn as an animal. Is it forever limited to animal-like instinctive behavior? No - it can still choose to reject its inborn desires and instead be loving and helpful, and gain the necessary positive kamma to be reborn as a human being or even higher in its next rebirth. Or, it can choose to follow it's inborn desires and be animalistic or even worse, and be reborn as an animal or in the hellish realms. We can see the example of many dogs who are loving, positive, and self-sacrificial; and other dogs who are

In summary, present choices made by the consciousness can override traits and lower tendencies acquired as a result of previous kamma. Choices can also be made to ignore the higher conciousness, to follow previously acquired traits and tendencies too, of course.

The idea that physical pleasure is a pole contrary to spiritual growth and maturity is pretty prevalent in all meaningful thought. Even the agnostic Schopenhauer had some good stuff in that vein.

This thread merely goes a bit farther by singling out the phallus as it's symbolically marked for extinction in Judaism. And then finished off for good in Christian re-birth.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Nope. And to be honest, the only way you could draw that conclusion is to completely ignore what I said, instead maki g a disingenuous clarifying question to 'prove your point'.

What I said is that a team based on merit and measurement of individuals will have an advantage. If more of those ondividuals happen to be African American, who cares?

You seem to be contradicting yourself and everything being discussed since the whole point is that if you get all the African Americans you're going to have the best NBA team, and if I get all the Jews, I'm going to have the best economy, religion, and mechanism for advancing culture and humanity toward a golden age of humanity.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Let God handle it. If it should turn out that some race of people is truly inferior to all others, it is very likely that over time that species will dwindle away into extinction, because they will have a hard time finding mates. Don't let it get you down. Just work hard every day, and take care of your family, and die at the appropriate time.

You can let God handle it if you like. And I won't fault you for that. But I believe he wants us to be a bit more proactive.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Don't worry about it. If your a good guy, and you can do a better job, you should get the job. Who cares if someone is inferior to you?
I don't care about a bunch of men wearing pantyhose who like jump on top of one another, and chase balls. I have better things to do.

. . . I find it difficult to believe anyone who doesn't like football can be spiritually enlightened?


John

 

[Oeste]

Meh...genetics matters. Ian Thorpe had ridiculously large feet which helped him as a swimmer. Manute Bol had no talent and got a basketball career out of being 7'7". But so did Shawn Bradley, who was whiter than me. It wasn't their skin colour that mattered. It would be about the worst way of determining 'merit' that I can think of.

Hi Lewis,

I agree that individual genetics can matter, just not the group or "racial" genetics put forth by Brey. There 's nothing about being Australian that gives one a genetic advantage in swimming, just as there is nothing about being Afro-American that allows one to play basketball.

I could have larger feet than Ian Thorpe and still lose a match to him because I don't train like he does. Likewise, I could be eight inches smaller than Manute Bol yet play the Center position more effectively. Americans brought home more medals than any other country in the recent Olympics, and they are not the tallest or shortest, nor do they have the largest or smallest penises on the planet.

I agree with you that Manute Bol had virtually no basketball talent and that color is one of the worst ways of determining merit. He could have been Russian, Chinese, or Native American and still a lousy player.

 

[John D. Brey]

What do you mean “What if it’s true”? What research are you alleging “that some races are grossly inferior (scientifically speaking)"???

I think Jews and African Americans (Ezek. 16:26) provide a dramatic scientific/historical example for much of what's said in the first three or four messages in the thread.

Since 1901, approximately 194 Jews have won the Nobel Prize. That's about 23% of all Nobel Prizes. Mind you Jews make up approximately 0.2 percent of the world population. ---- On the other hand African Americans, or blacks, make up approximately 20% of the world population, and have won about 10 or 15 Nobel prizes, about 2 percent.

Jews make up 2 tenths of one percent of the world population, and have won 23% of Nobel Prizes. Blacks make up a whopping 20% of world population and have won one tenth of the Nobel Prizes won by Jews. One in five persons on the planet are black. One in five hundred are Jewish. And yet Jews have won over twenty percent of Nobel Prizes?

Keep in mind the superiority being claimed in the early messages in the thread are related to economics, culture, and the advancement of humanity in general. ------The Nobel Prize, though not a perfect measure of any of these, is a reasonable gauge of who is producing thought products that are of serious value to culture, economics, and the advancement of society at large.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

I know of no creed or religion that is “inferior” when it comes to advancing society. Each creed or religion has the potential to advance or hold society back, just as each individual does. Same goes for any creed or religion’s “usefulness.

. . . You may have ingested too much of the Kool-Aid to be saved at this point?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Mr. Brey, can you kindly explain when and where your phrenological "penis theology" gained "scientific import"?

. . . Are you suggesting that truth is a social or democratic construct? Are you not capable of determining the import of a theory without some expert, or authority telling you it's ok, or true?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

It sounds to me like you want us to explore the possibility of Hitler’s argument regarding Jews, “Aryans” and blacks as some sort of “suppressed truth”. If so, was there some compelling study by Reich "doctors" that you believe is being hidden by modern science?

If you've not noticed any difference between Jews and Blacks then the point of this thread is pointless, so far as you're concerned. And I only use those two peoples because they seem to make a dramatic distinction.

Far from trying to suggest some racial superiority or inferiority, between Jews or Blacks, I'm doing quite the opposite. But before I could succeed at making an intelligent argument against racial superiority or inferiority, I would need to find someone, perhaps only one exists, who has noticed that there are real distinctions, real differences, meaningful disparity between various races, ethnicities, and religions, disparities and differences that require explanation, and perhaps even a solution.


John

 

[oldbadger]

I don't see a problem with your euthanasia proposal if it made everyone's life substantially better for fifty-years. I bet you could get something like that through Congress if it didn't affect those already past, or nearing that age.

John

I bet that you couldn't!
....if it didn't affect those (in Congress) already past or near that age....... it would affect the whole of humanity, and there would be millions of people prepared to fight to end such a disgusting law and the government which brought about its legislation.

But my example has served its purpose in showing me what lengths you would be prepared to go to for human efficiency, and all I can say is that there would always be enough humanists to stop you and yours from succeeding.

Where I live we have a powerful law, 'The Equality Act 2010' which gather together as many minorities as possible, identifies them, and then supports and protects them. We cannot even build a new house now without fitting a front door which enables access for a wheelchair user. Your World might have other ideas for disabled persons?