I don't understand racism or homophobia
- Thread starter Christmas themed thank
- Start date
More sophistism. I said humans have a natural instinct to hunt prey. You added the word strong, I didn't, if I did please quote me
Why was that? Was your argument low energy without it? You added murdering offspring and off you went on your sophist rocket
http://giphy.com/gifs/park-giraffic-13XEXC59E7asI8
Feel free to ignore the word strong (which I never quoted YOU as saying).
I'm asking a simple question, even if humans have (strong or otherwise) "natural" instincts to hunt prey, or to kill the children of competitors do lay out what that has to do with modern human behaviour or race (a concept with no evidence in science that I have found).
Last edited:
A fringe and Bizzare view?
I'll leave the Richard Dawkins summary of what "race" informs us of and suggest this view as pretty much accepted as scientific orthodoxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Did they all go by names like 007
Rather than answer a single question about the issues of racial classification, which are clearly laid out and inform the scientific orthodoxy, you ask a tangential question?
I guess if we want to throw in tangential arguments, some countries have strong laws around god/blaspheme etc, do such law mean that god exists, despite a lack of evidence? If so which country's laws have the definitive answer?
P.S. I have no issue with sub dividing humans, I'm suggesting attempts made to do so, (so far) have no real value, you may as well be dividing by eye colour.
Not in the slightest (but then I don't believe in "positive" discrimination either). The reality is there are still some sections of society that don't do as well as they should due to discrimination based on skin colour, sex or even name (for example foreign sounding names on CVs).
I'll fight against discrimination and unjust stereotyping of entire groups, but personally after that everyone is on their own on the fight to the top.
You can see that discrimination is alive and well in this thread (not talking about you or DAIR), people tying themselves in knots trying to justify their viewpoint. In some ways it's almost funny. :/
I know of straight people who take drugs and have sex tooin fact, it's pretty rife amongst young people. Damn those young people.
It's a major problem amongst the gay community apparently, far, far in excess of straight people
So you have no issues with gay marriage and wouldn't be homophobic towards two gay men in a long term relationship?
And what about church bells ringing at all times of the day, especially annoying early on a Sunday morning when you want to have a lie in?
Don't mention Christ, that source is really old!
I never said you quoted me saying it. It's strange to me why you added it when I never said anything about strong instincts or the other stuff you are rambling on about. Anyway back on topic: Are you seriously denying that humans have natural instincts to hunt prey, unlike my analogical bear? (a concept with no evidence in science that I have found)
Last edited:
Probably for similar reasons the country with the highest murder rate in the world (Honduras), whose people are largely of mixed European descent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Honduras
As krooton said.
Ethnicity has **** all to do with it, poverty is by and large the biggest driver of crime and violence.
Nope your the one asking about racial classification and i gave it to you the list used by the uk government for defining race.
Thats what youve asked i gave it.
Yet still no list
Unfortunately this doesn't qualify as an answer to the question.
Regardless of what I think human instincts are, even if humans do have "natural" instincts to hunt prey, or kill competitive offspring, or anything else you associate with the "natural" world. I'm simply asking what relevance you think those supposed instincts have to do with a discussion on "race/sub species" and modern human behaviour.
Maybe after asking 3, 4, 5 times you'll answer, rather than dodge the question?
1. Your full list of runners and riders for your top 10 of races (I've not seen a link to it yet) is not likely to be based on evidence and/or definitive.
2. Which years UK census racial classification list, would you like to use? The history of attempted racial classification in the UK census has likely changed radically, over even a relatively short period of time.
3. In what way will I be ranking the achievements of the supposed races, who burnt the most coal, killed the most people per head of population, owned the largest expanses of land.
In Britain alone if we are looking at historical achievement of "people", will I include the achievements of the bell beaker people, romans, saxons, vikings, normans and other conquering people as "White British" as per the modern census, even though they were (at the time of their achievement) from outside the then "British" population?
I see the failure in your logic now. When you jumped into the end of my bear analogy, it was a discussion on prejudgement (not started by myself) with FishFluff saying that prejudgement is not something we should tolerate. I said we shouldn't prejudge bears and go closer to stroke them. p4radox attempted to save him by saying bears have a natural instinct to hunt prey and change the argument into race from prejudge.
Last edited:
Depending on what you call development* there are a multitude of factors including things like
Continent size and access to transportation and trade routes - It's just massive, with few rivers (relative) making it very difficult to trade long distances as everything has to be lugged over land. That's one of the big things still holding up Africa. The British built a huge network of train tracks when in India, which are still used today. Much of Africa just doesn't have that luxury. The trains in India are regarded as one of the major drivers of development we have seen since independence (and prior tbh). Trade is a massive driver of wealth.
Geography - Not just size, but access to resources and good soil. Places like the UK were/are relatively lucky and have a large selection of resources (coal, iron, gold, etc) within easy access of the coast and rivers for transport. Much of Africa does not. Then there's the issue with soil and growing food. Much of Africa is just much harder to grow food and farm. The weather is also an issue - deserts and desertification to name one. That leads on to.
Climate - Hot, humid or bone dry. Climate is a large driver on development. The climate is also a major factor in the next issue, disease. Things like Malaria are and have always been major problems for development. Temperate places like the UK have had their problems, but just not to the same extent.
There's a reason the UK were the pioneers of the industrial revolution. By and large it wasn't because we were "smarter", or more "civilised", but due to blind "luck". Access to multiple resources, easy and short transport routes to populated areas and a huge coastline to allow us to many easy trade routes to the continent just next door. A temperate climate and less problems with infant mortality and disease also helped significantly.
Those are obviously just some of the reasons, and today every country has it's own development issues and reasons for historic slow development, but many boil down to the above, especially historically. I'm sure the Arab raiding parties down the East coast didn't help either.
*Much like South and Central America there were actually several large civilisations around in Africa prior to colonisation. Some had disappeared prior to colonialism, some were wiped out/absorbed and one survived to this day (Ethiopia)
This is a thread not about bears but about (primarily) judging humans based on irrelevant sub divisions. Yet again you haven't really answeted why you think the supposed "natural" instincts mentioned are relevant.
Last edited:
And which entire race would that be?
Then why did you make it into an argument about bears? And killing offspring and something something asexuals... My bear analogy was clearly about prejudge, which is linked to this topic, p4radox brought up instincts and it's you who went off on your sophist rocket.
