Quote:
Originally Posted by flip
NO that isn't my point and I only have some idea how to ideally measure these traits.
In fact your example is perfect I have absolutely no idea who would be more likely to be predisposed to racism.
The greatest factor is probably were either of their parents racist but even then that doesn't guarantee that their kids will be.
Let me say it for about the 200th time this thread:
Like many other things (crime, murder, attending a post secondary institution, graduating high school) there are factors that make one MORE LIKELY, this doesn't mean that all people will become _______, but that they may be predisposed to becoming _______, due to the traits they possess. There may also be people who possess none of the traits but still turn out to be ______. I don't know how some of you guys aren't getting this. I have used could, may, more likely and about 2 dozen other qualifiers but everyone who quotes me keeps saying "so all _____ people are racist then". Stop putting words in my mouth and actually read the posts. It sounds really great to make a snide post but if you're being ignorant of what I'm saying it doesn't have any weight.
|
Sounds like correlation vs. causation to me.
Certain behaviours and beliefs are more prevalent among certain demographics, that is undeniable. It doesn't mean that membership in a demographic causes those beliefs and behaviours, it just means the probability that a randomly selected person from that demographic will exhibit those beliefs and behaviours is heightened..