I don't understand racism or homophobia

Below is my first post quoting you, where you complain about ignoring natural instincts.

It is a relatively straightforward question and also relates to your analogy to humans stroking bears.

If someone poses the analogy: If we shouldn't be biased to ill defined and un evidenced human sub division, we should also stroke bears. I'm likely to ask how that person thinks supposed "natural" instincts (e.g. avoiding predators, hunting prey or killing the offspring of competitors) relates to the discussion at hand. I suspect that the answer will again not be forth coming?

-----------My Original question to you and others on the relevance of humans "natural" instincts------------
Tosno said:
Yeah, lots of brainless ramblings, such as prey being defined as same species only

Also I learnt humans have no natural instinct to hunt, a productive day :)
Click to expand...

If humans have strong "natural" instincts to hunt, murder the offspring of competitors and anything else you observed other organisms doing on planet earth II. With presumably humans having little (to zero) or at least lesser "natural" instinct to farm, pair up and send our offspring to institutions of higher learning, write poetry, create art or fly to the moon.

What would/should these suggested "natural" instincts have to do with human behaviour now, especially in regards to fairly ill defined "racism"?

You could arguably make a case that all life on earth should have strong "natural" instincts to reproduce asexually, because at some point in evolution it probably did.

Are jungles more natural? Why not go live and die in one?

Or perhaps we can propose an evidenced based approach to considering the value of attempted sub divisions of human beings; as opposed to randomly applying some trivial observation of other organisms and then using that to enforce personal cognitive bias.
 
Where am I complaining about ignoring natural instincts? I was laughing (still am) about humans having no natural instincts to hunt, you really should stop adding things, you're not clever enough to get away with it. I am talking about my analogy that you joined in on, not yours (read my frame). You still didn't tell me your opinion if you think humans have natural instincts to hunt or not.
 
Dis86 said:
Oh look, yet again deflecting criticism of Islam by bringing Christianity in to it.
Amp tactic number 7.
Click to expand...

And claiming that racism is just because some mosques make noises is just?:D

No deflection here, just pointing out the ridiculous notion of the claim.
 
Amp34 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have always held that had the British Empire survived into the 21st Century, Much of southern Africa would be more like India today.

IE essentially a single political entity well served by transport links with intertribal conflict being far less of an issue than it is today.

(By contrast, Had India not have been part of the British Empire, India would be rather more like Africa.

IE A multitude of smaller independent nations, less well connected and likly to be engaging in various degrees of hostility and warfare with one another)
 
Amp34 said:
And claiming that racism is just because some mosques make noises is just?:D

No deflection here, just pointing out the ridiculous notion of the claim.
Click to expand...

Oh no, that is just cray cray but there was no need to mention Christianity.

For example...

Dude, the call to morning prayer isn't going to make people racist. Just damn cranky!
 
Tosno said:
Too right brother! *high 5* Such educated people as us would never prejudge a bear, we would go closer and stroke it to get more information if it is friendly or not. To stereotype a bear because it's a bear is wicked!
Click to expand...

Your words, on a thread about pre judging human beings on the basis of sub divisions, that scientific orthodoxy suggests, are based on nothing more than seemingly irrelevant external appearances.

You posted later
Tosno said:
Yeah, lots of brainless ramblings, such as prey being defined as same species only

Also I learnt humans have no natural instinct to hunt, a productive day :)
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely interested in what you think the relevance of the statements were.

Are some supposed "races" more bear like?

Should "natural" instinct overrule my rational thought that the"weak" analogy is fatally flawed?

For me, discounting the value of simplistic human sub divisions (based on nothing more than "the superficial, external traits like eye shape and skin color") is not akin to avoiding the stroking of a bear.

My personal thoughts on instincts (that have no doubt served humans well in different historic environments). I suspect these probably continue to serve some individuals well, especially when applied to complex problems, like pattern matching, creative thinking and arguably other individuals less so. Those who perhaps fail to apply them to environments radically different from where they first formed. But to be honest I haven't read much on the science of human instinct. I have read more on the evolution/history of technological development, which arguably may be distinct from, but may help shape the use of our instincts.
 
Gigabit said:
I literally don't understand how or why people are racist or homophobic. It just doesn't make sense to me and it sickens me to think some people are.

Can somebody please enlighten me?
Click to expand...

Some people are, some people aren't. You will not change that, ever.

You being sickened only affects YOU negatively, the racist still won't care.

But I agree with your sentiments without being 'sickened' as that's just the way of the world. No use winding yourself up, it won't change.
 
Faustus said:
I am talking about mainstream TV channels and programmes such as C4 News, BBC, ITV and C5 News, along with special features around race etc. on this type of programme. I don't class this as 'rubbish TV', do you?
Click to expand...

All TV is pretty much rubbish tbh.
 
stewski said:
Your words, on a thread about pre judging human beings on the basis of sub divisions, that scientific orthodoxy suggests, are based on nothing more than seemingly irrelevant external appearances.

You posted later


I'm genuinely interested in what you think the relevance of the statements were.

Are some supposed "races" more bear like?

Should "natural" instinct overrule my rational thought that the"weak" analogy is fatally flawed?

For me, discounting the value of simplistic human sub divisions (based on nothing more than "the superficial, external traits like eye shape and skin color") is not akin to avoiding the stroking of a bear.

My personal thoughts on instincts (that have no doubt served humans well in different historic environments). I suspect these probably continue to serve some individuals well, especially when applied to complex problems, like pattern matching, creative thinking and arguably other individuals less so. Those who perhaps fail to apply them to environments radically different from where they first formed. But to be honest I haven't read much on the science of human instinct. I have read more on the evolution/history of technological development, which arguably may be distinct from, but may help shape the use of our instincts.
Click to expand...

My words on prejudgements in a thread about racism or homophobia making the OP sick and virtue signalling, replying to someone that said prejudgements shouldn't be tolerated. The rest are your words on races, killing offspring, asexuals, living and dying in jungles, that is some sophist rocket you are riding on. Must be fun, I am just enjoying watching you ride it.
 
Last edited:
On the Tefal idea of race's top 10, I honestly can't get with that idea. I see no useful/workable definition of human sub divisions. That said an evolutionary top trumps could be cool.

I'd make this the best card in the pack:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...aby-sling-made-our-brains-bigger-2071291.html

Do our inventions and culture actually shape our evolution, I don't know.
Looking at current evidence Id' suggest there is only one winner of the top 10 races, the human race, let's just hope, in a finite environment it actually has enough "smarts" to persist in one form or another.
 
Too many white guys in this thread, y'all need to check your privilege yo.

Edit: Crime rates are generally correlated with poverty.... I say generally because i'm sure there are exceptions.
 
Tosno said:
My words on prejudgements in a thread about racism or homophobia making the OP sick and virtue signalling. The rest are your words on races, killing offspring, asexuals, living and dying in jungles, that is some sophist rocket you are riding on. Must be fun, I am just enjoying watching you ride it.
Click to expand...

Obviously I can't counter that you are also (a person who reasons with clever but false arguments), it appears you made an irrelevant contribution and have systematically failed to explain your thinking behind it, or why you find my points to be false. Feel free to keep trotting the word out though.
 
Sophist, Sophist, Sophist, Sophist, Sophist.

I've read this word so many times now, it now makes no sense to me. Must be word of the day at school at the moment.
 
CREATIVE!11 said:
Too many white guys in this thread, y'all need to check your privilege yo.

Edit: Crime rates are generally correlated with poverty.... I say generally because i'm sure there are exceptions.
Click to expand...

Interesting so

Crime correlates with race is correlation =/= causation


Crime correlates with poverty is correlation = causation.


So if race correlates with poverty is that correlation = causation or not?
 
stewski said:
Obviously I can't counter that you are also (a person who reasons with clever but false arguments), it appears you made an irrelevant contribution and have systematically failed to explain your thinking behind it, or why you find my points to be false. Feel free to keep trotting the word out though.
Click to expand...

Then we have to agree to disagree with each others irrelevance and/or sophism.
 
stewski said:
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?
Click to expand...

I posted a link to the current uk defi itions theyre on wiki.

2 the most recent ones.

3 as ive said repetedly whatever catagory you like.



You it is perfectly acceptable to answer "i dont want to do it as I'll look racist" i only posted the challenge as i wanted to see the mental gymnastics people would pull to avoid answering rhe question .

And you and angillion provided excellently.



You both have highlighted the major isssue, it's almost impossible to have a discussion about racial issues as no one wants to actually talk just side step and strawman or play semantics because they don't want to appear racist.


I find it funny in this thread its a bunch of white straight guys saying how terrible it alll is.

And one black dude and a bi guy saying, its really not.:D
 
Tosno said:
Then we have to agree to disagree with each others irrelevance and/or sophism.
Click to expand...

Well you could attempt to explain why you believe either the analogy or appeal to instincts are valid, I have tried to outline some of my reasoning as to why I don't. Very simple summary below:

Ill defined racial grouping <> Bear.
Hunting instinct < rational thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom