Sowell's most recent book talks about it at length.

@Deleted User @Rils have neither of you heard of the restaurant that refused to serve black people in 1964, and the supreme court ruled using the "commerce clause" that the federal government had the authority to compel a business to not discriminate because it would affect interstate travel?

Could you be more specific?

I gotta look that up. Maybe it was due to it's location

1964 would've been at the tail end of Jim Crow

As a sidebar, I disagree with that assessment, racial discrimination has nothing to do with interstate commerce and shouldn't be under the purview of the commerce clause.

@Deleted User @Rils wait. Seriously you've never heard of this? Am I that old?

I'm indian, sorry

I haven't heard about this vague event.

I'm 38

I'm 17....

Katzenbach v. McClung?

The restaurant acted specifically to push back against government overreach.

That one, also Heart of Atlanta Hotel vs United States

let it be know the first real debate was actually this server and its new authoritarian ruleset 😛

I kid btw

The commerce clause was intended to keep the Federal government from becoming involved in local commerce, but the courts have stretched it so far that almost everything is interstate commerce and so the Federal government has authority.

Okay, so quick back story from an "old man" about why you no longer see "whites only" signs in the United states , as soon as I get done playing with my dog that seems to be wanting my attention

well the internet kinda made everything interstate commerce

not to mention most transactions are handled via credit card terminals which means most data is proably transfered over state lines

so where do you actually draw the line between local and interstate transaction now?

(this is not an argument one way or another, just bringing up points)

If my business only pays with cash and only accepts cash, would I be exempt?

I would say so, but im no lawyer

im just saying the lines between intrastate and interstate commerce has significally blurred (imo) since the advent of the internet and digital payment technologies

Prepping for a discussion;
race and crime: cultural Vs biological.

(Is the disproportionate representation of crime due to cultural/socioeconomic factors, or is it a biological difference; that blacks are just de-facto more violent?)

(Not gonna mention which side I'm intending to argue, as I want information from all sides.)

As is mentioned in "Theory of Race" by Wilson (1995), the discussion is "mired in an unproductive mix of controversy and silence" - and it's proving difficult to find sources that are up to date and relevant. Any helpful links would be much appreciated, if anyone has any to hand. (@tag me)

Nurture > nature

nurture = nature

morals are taught, not inherited

how we are nurtured effects our genetic growth and our ability to produce offspring, a minor example of that can be found here http://ccf.org/reproductiveresearchcenter/docs/agradoc356.pdf the effect of how you live your life on the life you bring into the world is noticible even on a genetic level given large populations and long scales of time this becomes the nature as culture and envirnments effect selection processes within the species which produces ofspring with different traits than those found outside the group that is breeding most often with itself than any outside group.

_Is this guy asking us to do his research for him_

that would be amusing

would be funny if i somehow got roped into doing that for someone to do a public debate

starting injectin falso info here and there 😃

LMAO no, I've been doing my own research too, just figured this might be a good place to find people who may already have some links to hand which could help me. Of course I'll be going through everything, as well as what I have so far.

my hypothosis is that you cannot simply take an average zygote from any person on earth and render an average person from them. their genetics has some effect on who they will become, as their treatment from conception to atleast the age of 25

longterm i think theres a relationship between genetics and envirnment that ultimately effects the diversion of species

Problem I'm having is the muddied waters - my compatriot keeps bringing up the race:IQ correlation (which he asserts is biological) and then the IQ:crime correlation to support his hypothesis that it's entirely biological.

Also states that race:crime is biological; he asserts this on the basis that on average, blacks have more testosterone and a higher fight-or-flight reflex... but since things like your posture, can chance your testosterone (and other brain chemicals), there's something to be said for a cultural/social reason for this too. Plus none of the studies I have found so far measure across cultures for the same races.

For example, the higher fight-or-flight reflex would be understandable for people who are constantly aware of external threats. #MudHutsVsDoubleGlazing

I mean, my main argument is "why does it matter".

Whether it's biological or cultural, you can't make policy around it.. you shouldn't, for example, make immigration policy that discriminates blacks because they have a higher propensity for violence.. that would be illiberal. But I really wanna drill down into the subject with him. Curiosity is peaked

im not sure how they messure testosterone averages between people but the only way i think there could be established a connection is by messuring the genes responcible for testosterone production because SO many factors go into testosterone levels in your native resting conditions that it can change after a few hours

The only problem I have is, Why are they obsessed with one race? If IQ is the problem, why not focus on high IQ people?

And not just the huawhite race?

My problem is that any result is meaningless realy

their argument is usually that iq and agression are conversely proportionate to eachother

You cant draw any policy based on this research

Because IQ is just a bi-line he's making to support his predetermined conclusion, imo. @shaving

And yeah @zutt , that's exactly what I said above

LOL shaving autocorrect

Like i dont mind them researching this

But you have to judge person based on his character

Not race

Yeah; but what's the point.

I'm with you there, but I still wanna have the discussion with him. Not just about why he thinks it's important, but also why he believes it to be true. Just out of curiosity more than anything.

when making national policys your almost always judging people by average traits relitive to group you can file them into

Yes but that is drawn on cultural grounds not racial grounds

As for why is alt right so obsessedwith it is simple

Well, I'm dead centre on this; There's no doubt looking at the figures that blacks commit more violent crime per capita than whites, in most countries. I don't believe it's entirely biological nor entirely cultural (though I think culture probably plays a bigger role; social disorganization theory)

I think it's worth examining the root cause, but as I mentioned in OP, the discussion is kinda taboo in the first place, which I think accounts for the "these kinds of people" arguments gaining traction

If you say that the problems with 3rd world migrants are due to their cultures that implies they can be taught adapt

If you say its natural you can say they are unable to coexist in one nation

And expell them all out

That's true, and both are bad outcomes. But refusing to acknowledge the facts as a problem, is also... problematic.

Agreed

You know, the people talking about blacks being shot more by police, but ignoring the fact that blacks commit more violent crime (requiring police intervention)

Well its complicated

In this case their skin calour serves as indicator of culture in policeman subconsciousnes

Fucking Shaving

See I don't know if that's necessarily the case. I mean, we all know implicit bias tests are BS, we have no way to measure how much of someone's subconscious is influencing their behaviour or treatment if another.

If you look at an average police encounter with anyone, their attitude of normally based on the context of their reason for being there.

If they're walking down the street, they'll be calmer than if they're responding to an active shooter situation.

I believe these issues will not trouble our species not much longer tho

I think within 50 years programing of newborns genom will become comonplace

And wouldent surprise me if the parent will be able to just choose the looks of their child

More interracial breeding I say

Yeah, it's crazy... I hope it never comes to that.

I'm not even sure I'm on board with genetic modification to eliminate birth defects/medixal conditions.

Hell, im not really a fan of genetic modification of corn, lol.

Corn has been genetically modified for years lol

tacos are the best food.. debate me

You forgot enchiladas.

Debate over

tacoenchiladas are the best food

^

Nah

Lad

the best food is

Chimichangas

You realize that ppl were carrying primitive genetic modification for centuries right ?

Thanks @g@Graylan | gray00 , I'll present that in the debate

hahaha

Sam harris would be proud

just make up new words and win minds

fuck it

Haha

Every single food has been modified lol

Speaking of Harris.. where do you line up on objective vs subjective morality? :p or is that too heavy right now..?

Even fucking bananas

@NotQuiteHuman There is objective *and* subjective morality

@NotQuiteHuman oh speaking about that. fuck jordan peterson now haha

it depends on the issue

He said some dumb shit with Matt

im tired of him now

Okayyy shiv, Give me an example of something that is objectively moral?

Or immoral

this debate is retarded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8

like.. i dunno

matt destroyed him i think