Again, relevance? Not sure how discussing the characteristics of the literal color is useful here. (when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits)
You are selecting a team of basketball players solely based on the color of their skin. I bet I could build a better basketball team by looking at the shoes they are wearing. I disagree, I think the color of a persons skin is an indicator of nothing more than color of their skin.
when we know that color in the context of race can be linked to various traits
Color of skin magically provides traits to people? This is not a sane argument.
Obviously, I'm pointing out the irrelevance of skin color when it comes to determining the basketball skill of a human being.
Straw man much?
Obviously the color of the skin isn't magically providing traits. But OTOH we do know that the same gene pool that provides that color also tends to produce other traits.
It wasn't so long ago that British governors in Australia picked which aboriginal children would get a Western education based an nothing but the color of their skin. The belief that skin color is directly linked to other traits is very real.
The belief that skin color is directly linked to other traits is very real.
It isn't just the belief that is real, it is the link that is also very real. Now how that information should be ethically used is up for debate. But to pretend that the genetics that produce a given color don't also tend to produce other characteristics is foolish.
The belief that skin color is directly linked to other traits is very real.
It isn't just the belief that is real, it is the link that is also very real. Now how that information should be ethically used is up for debate. But to pretend that the genetics that produce a given color don't also tend to produce other characteristics is foolish.
But if it's the other characteristics you care about, why not filter for them instead?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
The belief that skin color is directly linked to other traits is very real.
It isn't just the belief that is real, it is the link that is also very real. Now how that information should be ethically used is up for debate. But to pretend that the genetics that produce a given color don't also tend to produce other characteristics is foolish.
But if it's the other characteristics you care about, why not filter for them instead?
Because you lack the tools to directly target and measure the other characteristic? Or maybe the most efficient filter is multilayered and involves race alongside other factors?
Which characteristics did you have in mind, that are genetically linked to skin colour in this way, but not actually targetable and measurable themselves?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Which characteristics did you have in mind, that are genetically linked to skin colour in this way, but not actually targetable and measurable themselves?
There are all sorts of "invisible" medically related links that you couldn't detect sans genetic/blood testing. Note I am talking about the practicality of the testing, not just the possibility. Being able to screen for something in theory, and being able to do it in practice (say when dealing with a large population and/or limited resources) are different issues.
Which characteristics did you have in mind, that are genetically linked to skin colour in this way, but not actually targetable and measurable themselves?
There are all sorts of "invisible" medically related links that you couldn't detect sans genetic/blood testing. Note I am talking about the practicality of the testing, not just the possibility. Being able to screen for something in theory, and being able to do it in practice (say when dealing with a large population and/or limited resources) are different issues.
We screen for a number of hereditary conditions when a kid's born. The ethical guidelines require that it be in the child's interest, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
It wasn't so long ago that British governors in Australia picked which aboriginal children would get a Western education based an nothing but the color of their skin. The belief that skin color is directly linked to other traits is very real.
It isn't just the belief that is real, it is the link that is also very real. Now how that information should be ethically used is up for debate. But to pretend that the genetics that produce a given color don't also tend to produce other characteristics is foolish.
But if it's the other characteristics you care about, why not filter for them instead?
Because you lack the tools to directly target and measure the other characteristic? Or maybe the most efficient filter is multilayered and involves race alongside other factors?
There are all sorts of "invisible" medically related links that you couldn't detect sans genetic/blood testing. Note I am talking about the practicality of the testing, not just the possibility. Being able to screen for something in theory, and being able to do it in practice (say when dealing with a large population and/or limited resources) are different issues.
We screen for a number of hereditary conditions when a kid's born. The ethical guidelines require that it be in the child's interest, though.
On phasing: