-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
George Zimmerman trial
- Thread starter MoGottiFor3
- Start date
bcort
Sixth Man
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,239
- Reaction score
- 1,677
- Points
- 113
I think what people understand to have happened has been wrecked by the media. It's unfortunate. But, if you want to give your input (and not just stick to the basketball threads), definitely look up the details of the case before commenting.
David.
Radical Centrist
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 30,895
- Reaction score
- 27,234
- Points
- 135
i have no problem with looney coming in when he did with his opinion.. he just wasnt there for the 49 other pages. he wasnt aggressive about his point of view and gave room for himself to be wrong.
who is right every time the first time about everything?
who is right every time the first time about everything?
CavsFaninNJ
Gold Star Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2,415
- Reaction score
- 3,677
- Points
- 113
Sounds like looking for trouble to me too, man. When you stupidly put yourself in a situation where you conceivably could have to use a gun (following someone you think, based on your biases, is a thief) then how forced can you claim to have been to shoot when you do? Just putting it out there. You dont have to answer - thinking aloud.
And I don't think people realize how offensive it is when someone racially profiles you for doing nothing.
Soda
Listen To The Kids!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 15,068
- Reaction score
- 13,197
- Points
- 123
This is definitely not a one-way street. I was blatantly told by co-workers that if I valued my life, I shouldn't drive thru the near east-side at night. I'll stick out like a sore thumb.
David.
Radical Centrist
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 30,895
- Reaction score
- 27,234
- Points
- 135
I wasnt allowed into a convenience store a couple years ago because I had a bag and have tattoos and had a wife beater on. Its got nothing to do with race, everything to do with how you present yourself.
MalTalm
Formerly known as Talm
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,725
- Reaction score
- 3,732
- Points
- 113
I'm late to this thread, and sadly read through all of this crap to catch up. That said, there was a prevailing argument perpetuated awhile back that there might be genetic significance which supports some racial beliefs. The idea that black people have a higher amount of testosterone, are more susceptible to sickle-cell, etc... The genetic argument for racism comes up pretty often, and it seems most people here genuinely are trying to form rational opinions, not justify racism. There's some arguments which need to be made here...
Genetics for racism are, indeed, bullshit. Dave at one point said "Black people have darker skin than white people." As if this, at a base level, distinctly sets up an argument for some level of racism. (This isn't an attack on Dave, just clarifying an argument). The problem exists inherently in the argument, it's a logical fallacy. Darker skin is a genetic trait just like blond hair or brown eyes. Darker shades of skin tend to be a dominant genetic trait, which means if two light skinned people have a child, it will definitively be a light skinned child. (They both MUST be lacking a dominant gene, or else they'd be dark skinned). Meanwhile, two dark skinned people may have a light skinned child if both were carrying a light skinned gene. This is basic biology which I'm sure most people have some understanding of. But the point is, skin color is a single genetic trait, such as hair color or eye color, and has no bearing on other genetic traits a person carries.
To expand a bit, the sickle cell argument came up. The origin of sickle cell anemia comes from a genetic evolution locals had to combat malaria. Because malaria is less effective against sickle-shaped blood cells, people who had sickle cell were far more likely to survive in areas where malaria was rampant. Since malaria is spread primarily by mosquitoes, this tended to be in areas with a lot of moisture and heat (along the Equator). So, while Northern Europeans aren't likely to have sickle cell unless they have Asian, South American or African ancestors, this hardly means it is a genetic trait shared by black people. It's also worth noting that sickle cell is common among people with Greek, Sicilian or Turkish ancestry, which most might call "dark skinned white people." Or something. At the same time, natives to, say, the fire island, who are dark skinned, aren't likely to develop sickle cell, because malaria isn't a significant issue in the fire islands.
I've honestly never heard much about the testosterone argument before, but that sounds a great deal like the fast twitch muscle argument. Because of how evolution works, it's highly unlikely to be a study which could actually hold up to peer review. The fact is, people don't evolve based on wide-ranging or world-ranging concepts. There weren't multiple populations of humans (blacks, whites, and asians) who all evolved on similar tracks in separate locations. Instead, people evolve regionally. And many of these regional evolutionary traits tend to be highly localized. The genetics for someone whose primary roots lie in the Congo would likely vary as much from someone from Niger as they would England. The only difference is our easy ability to distinguish the difference, because skin color is such an obvious way to tell two people apart.
The point is, as Gour hinted at and as 216 poorly attempted to argue, skin color is a single genetic trait, but it has zero bearing on other genetic traits. And simply because some regional genetic histories might mean some part of the black population bears a difference from some part of the white population (such as sickle cell) is not indicative of multiple, easily categorical differences. Racism is a convenient way society categorizes people, but scientifically it holds zero weight.
What does play a much larger role in terms of crime rate, incarceration rate and employment rate are things like income level, stability of a child's household, education, and, yes, racism. The problem with our society right now is we tend to focus all of our problems on one issue in a vacuum. In the case of the Zimmerman trial, it's really hard to argue George did everything "right" that night. I'd also say it's nigh impossible to definitively say he acted without a modicum of racism. No one besides George knows exactly why he picked out Trayvon and decided to follow him. However, our legal system dictates someone is innocent so long as there is reasonable doubt, and the Zimmerman case was nothing if not filled with reasonable doubt. The most upsetting part of this case is the focus on George, and racism, and not the fact that, at the end of the day, a 17 year old kid is dead.
Genetics for racism are, indeed, bullshit. Dave at one point said "Black people have darker skin than white people." As if this, at a base level, distinctly sets up an argument for some level of racism. (This isn't an attack on Dave, just clarifying an argument). The problem exists inherently in the argument, it's a logical fallacy. Darker skin is a genetic trait just like blond hair or brown eyes. Darker shades of skin tend to be a dominant genetic trait, which means if two light skinned people have a child, it will definitively be a light skinned child. (They both MUST be lacking a dominant gene, or else they'd be dark skinned). Meanwhile, two dark skinned people may have a light skinned child if both were carrying a light skinned gene. This is basic biology which I'm sure most people have some understanding of. But the point is, skin color is a single genetic trait, such as hair color or eye color, and has no bearing on other genetic traits a person carries.
To expand a bit, the sickle cell argument came up. The origin of sickle cell anemia comes from a genetic evolution locals had to combat malaria. Because malaria is less effective against sickle-shaped blood cells, people who had sickle cell were far more likely to survive in areas where malaria was rampant. Since malaria is spread primarily by mosquitoes, this tended to be in areas with a lot of moisture and heat (along the Equator). So, while Northern Europeans aren't likely to have sickle cell unless they have Asian, South American or African ancestors, this hardly means it is a genetic trait shared by black people. It's also worth noting that sickle cell is common among people with Greek, Sicilian or Turkish ancestry, which most might call "dark skinned white people." Or something. At the same time, natives to, say, the fire island, who are dark skinned, aren't likely to develop sickle cell, because malaria isn't a significant issue in the fire islands.
I've honestly never heard much about the testosterone argument before, but that sounds a great deal like the fast twitch muscle argument. Because of how evolution works, it's highly unlikely to be a study which could actually hold up to peer review. The fact is, people don't evolve based on wide-ranging or world-ranging concepts. There weren't multiple populations of humans (blacks, whites, and asians) who all evolved on similar tracks in separate locations. Instead, people evolve regionally. And many of these regional evolutionary traits tend to be highly localized. The genetics for someone whose primary roots lie in the Congo would likely vary as much from someone from Niger as they would England. The only difference is our easy ability to distinguish the difference, because skin color is such an obvious way to tell two people apart.
The point is, as Gour hinted at and as 216 poorly attempted to argue, skin color is a single genetic trait, but it has zero bearing on other genetic traits. And simply because some regional genetic histories might mean some part of the black population bears a difference from some part of the white population (such as sickle cell) is not indicative of multiple, easily categorical differences. Racism is a convenient way society categorizes people, but scientifically it holds zero weight.
What does play a much larger role in terms of crime rate, incarceration rate and employment rate are things like income level, stability of a child's household, education, and, yes, racism. The problem with our society right now is we tend to focus all of our problems on one issue in a vacuum. In the case of the Zimmerman trial, it's really hard to argue George did everything "right" that night. I'd also say it's nigh impossible to definitively say he acted without a modicum of racism. No one besides George knows exactly why he picked out Trayvon and decided to follow him. However, our legal system dictates someone is innocent so long as there is reasonable doubt, and the Zimmerman case was nothing if not filled with reasonable doubt. The most upsetting part of this case is the focus on George, and racism, and not the fact that, at the end of the day, a 17 year old kid is dead.
gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
Was arrested for pulling out a shotgun and threatening his girlfriends life, then smashing her cocktail table with it.
Cops didn't buy his b.s. this time. This is like the 3rd time he's been in the news, and now his estranged wife is saying she has doubts about his innocence -- ya think?
There will always be people that will run to the front of the line to carry water for this guy, and that's their prerogative, I dunno why though. He's done this kind of shit repeatedly before the Martin trial, and repeatedly after. Beating women every chance he got, from a girl in the club, to his wife, to threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun. How many times have any of you guys beat on your girl, assaulted a female cop, or threatened your girl with a shotgun?
The guy is unstable, a menace, and only now are people starting to realize he could be a murderer...
Jack Brickman
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2012
- Messages
- 38,456
- Reaction score
- 61,544
- Points
- 148
I'm definitely below my quota, that's for damn sure.
