Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Race

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 12
 [ 227 posts ] 
Race
Author Message
kenandkidsUser avatarPosts: 1117Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:00 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Race

With the recent discussion that, yet again, demonstrated racism by those who like to declare themselves better than some other group of people (so shockingly a conservative/libertarian... :roll: ), I thought I'd share some of what I see in the concept of "race."

I come from a very racist family. A very republican, conservative family. A family that constantly pisses and moans about the halcyon days of yore when it wasn't "illegal to be a proud white man." I had an uncle who "defended" his white wife from a black guy who was "obviously hunting for white whores" and a father who helped bury the body. Most of my sister's side of the family belongs to either the AB (Aryan Brotherhood) or the KKK. I've dealt with racism all of my damn life, and nonsense like "genetic inferiority" has been a staple of the ridiculous crap I've had to listen to.

This has lead to a lot of thinking on the subject and reading numerous studies and articles on genetics over the last few decades. Here are my thoughts and ruminations.

As Anachronous Rex pointed out elsewhere, every credible study points to greater overall genetic diversity and difference within generally perceived races than compared to other races. What this means is that if I and another "white" person near me are genetically compared, then we will have a statistically greater chance of genetic difference than I and the nearest "black" person standing near me. The perceived race issue has little to do with the differences, the situations in which the perceived similar race developed is far more important.

Eastern russians and Ukrainians are considered white, yet they have mongoloid (no, not retarded or Down syndrome) genetic material. A great deal of north western Asia has the same genetic markers yet have other markers that make them considered to be Asian. The famous warlike tribe that conquered vast amounts of land in the region is the cause of the widespread diversity of their genetic material. In context, for the people that confuse a human's paint-job with her race, this means that the "white" russian immigrant is likely less similar to the "white" German immigrant than either is to "black" guy sitting next to them. Yes, I realise and acknowledge that I'm over-simplifying, I just wanted to point out how the concept works.

Another idiot idea, and one that WAS brought up in the other thread, is that some "races" have evolved "more" than others. In the other statements, an allegation that some races had evolved more intellectually than others. This doesn't pass any bullshit test. These types of racists like to misconstrue reality in order to think that African blacks have had less intellectual and more physical development than whites or Asians. It is my contention, due to what I've read over the years, that this is sheer stupidity. The general root of this thought is that because the tribe or group or race is closer to the original "home" of the species, it needed less development to belong in it's niche. Lets look at the "intelligence" niche and whether it favours the european or the african human.

What makes our species, the human form of African ape, special in regards to our environment? Our capacity for rapid accumulation of knowledge and our ability to pass it along to our progeny. In other words, intelligence. In Africa, intelligence made us viable competitors for food and territory. Africa has a great (the greatest?) collection of large and violent creatures that can compete with humans for both food and territory. Intelligence is absolutely required for us to maintain a foothold and to be as successful as we have been there. If you wish to argue this, notice that our close cousins have very restrictive territorial needs that must be met because they easily become prey or lack the capacity to easily adapt to other food and housing situations elsewhere. Notably, they require forests or trees for defence and comfort. The human's capacity to adapt quickly is directly related to our ability to learn and communicate new concepts, something that our ape cousins do not have to our degree.

European and Asian humans did not exactly have the same competition to survive. Although the poisonous nature of so many of Asia's animals is famous, simple visual and auditory acuity can assist the population to avoid the dangers for the most part. Asia's humans had to adapt to a different problem, housing and travel. The outward manifestation is the slitted eyes, these reduce glare from sunlight on reflective surfaces. Intelligence was no less needed for the Asian development, just for slightly different reasons and it was accompanied by a physical change, lighter skin and slitted eyes.

In Europe intelligence had the least to do with the human populations development. The climates were temperate and predators few. Material was easy to find and often at hand, and prey animals were everywhere. The harsh northern winters were the primary difficulty for the European humans.

As I said, this is a simple breakdown of what I've come up with, but one that racists could learn from. Since nearly every racist I've met has sense of white, European, superiority; it nearly always makes them angry when I take their "less evolved" argument and point out that European whites are "likely" the least "evolved." They had the fewest hurdles when it comes to natural selection.


My basic view
Race is a stupid term because of the image or concepts that it involves. We aren't technically different races or subspecies. People who like to attach themselves to either of these terms have a misinterpretation of reality. A common comparison is made to "breeds" of animals. Dogs are the most common comparison. This is technically not a good comparison though.

Races are like breeds
Wrong. Canines can breed together, and this is often the basis for this claim. I understand the logical leap, and I used to use it. But it is entirely inaccurate. The reason why is that dogs are far more prevalent and diversified than apes. We have very few comparisons to other apes that can carry through to a comparison to dogs. Guided Selection is what makes this a terrible comparison. We have guided dog breeds to exhibit specific traits. Some dogs are known for intelligence, some for cunning, some for physical strength, some for physical endurance, some for size, etc.. This is why the comparison breaks down, a person that compares human race to dog breed may unwittingly be fortifying the opponents talking points.


I prefer the comparison to like forms of a single "breed" of dog. My favourite are pitbulls. Humans are different from each other in a very similar manner that pitbulls are different from each other. Brindle pits have a distinct paintjob and a few minor physical differences, they are also susceptible to certain physical ailments. The American PB Terrier has it's own paintjob and susceptibility to ailments. Yet, when you compare the two breeds objectively and closely, you'll notice the overwhelming similarities, not the differences.

Humans are like this, different paintjobs, differences in minor aspects of appearance, but similar in both form and function. Any person that tries to pull genetic or evolutionary bullshit to explain why some races are superior has clearly never studied or attempted to make honest comparisons.



Feel free to argue or expand on concepts I didn't touch. This is more of just a general touching from the top of my head.


edit: Small irony, just after writing this I was channel surfing and saw a white-pride program featuring Tom Metzger. I've actually met the dude more than once... what a piece of work...
Teapublican commandment:
Thou shalt not educate or improve the lives of the lesser classes, the lesser races, or women.

Fiddler on:

http://obnoxi.us/
Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:41 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Race

I don't like the concept of breaking humanity up into "sub-race" categories. We are Human. That's a race and it's enough. I never "properly" answer the race section of my census form either. If I come from Mexico does that make me black, white, Asian, or native? I have pale olive skin tone, a stupid European jaw bone that's too small for my teeth, and jet black wavy hair and it confuses the gals who cut my hair. I don't give a shit anymore. I'm human. Piss off.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:01 am
CommonEnlightenmentUser avatarPosts: 649Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:06 amLocation: Plato Crater Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Race

televator wrote: I don't give a shit anymore. I'm human. Piss off.


Here, here........ "In full agreement".
There is still light in the 'Earthly' darkness. Finding light in the darkness can be more satisfying than merely seeing the glaring light of our sun. It gives us a better understanding of light and a deeper understanding of our universe.
Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:41 am
kenandkidsUser avatarPosts: 1117Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:00 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Race

While I agree with you both in concept, genetic characteristics are extremely important in medicine and other facets of life. Also, you cannot simply say that a concept which the rest of humanity feels is important is a non-issue. If it is an issue to 99% of people you speak to, it is something that must be acknowledged and addressed.
Teapublican commandment:
Thou shalt not educate or improve the lives of the lesser classes, the lesser races, or women.

Fiddler on:

http://obnoxi.us/
Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:47 am
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Race

Well, there's more than one kind of racism?

For instance, the racism you ran into on LoR is the libertarian/conservative form of racism, which is "we don't want to shell out money for social programs, minorities use social programs, so let's be racist in order to justify destroying those programs." It is an excuse for money-based sociopathy and a symptom of that mental defect rather than its own unique problem.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Sat Aug 13, 2011 5:10 pm
impikuUser avatarPosts: 211Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:58 amLocation: Hell. Gender: Cake

Post Re: Race

Aww how cute.
"Who needs Satan when you have a God like this?" -- Robert M. Price

"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
Sat Aug 13, 2011 11:51 pm
CommonEnlightenmentUser avatarPosts: 649Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:06 amLocation: Plato Crater Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Race

kenandkids wrote:While I agree with you both in concept, genetic characteristics are extremely important in medicine and other facets of life. Also, you cannot simply say that a concept which the rest of humanity feels is important is a non-issue. If it is an issue to 99% of people you speak to, it is something that must be acknowledged and addressed.


There is a distinct difference between using genetics for medical purposes (very little EMOTIONAL component) as opposed to use it for other questionable ends (like limiting rights). Usually a hate or jealousy component is witnessed with the latter. I'm sure this is why ethics committees are useful for our society. And I would also state that sometimes rooting out the hate/jealousy component takes time and can be a very difficult process.
There is still light in the 'Earthly' darkness. Finding light in the darkness can be more satisfying than merely seeing the glaring light of our sun. It gives us a better understanding of light and a deeper understanding of our universe.
Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:38 am
impikuUser avatarPosts: 211Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:58 amLocation: Hell. Gender: Cake

Post Re: Race

CommonEnlightenment wrote:There is a distinct difference between using genetics for medical purposes (very little EMOTIONAL component) as opposed to use it for other questionable ends (like limiting rights). Usually a hate or jealousy component is witnessed with the latter. I'm sure this is why ethics committees are useful for our society. And I would also state that sometimes rooting out the hate/jealousy component takes time and can be a very difficult process.


Well, that's not always the case. To me, depicting people that are say, for restricting immigration as racists are the emotional ones. There are truely racist people, but there are far more people that are silencing rational discourse for the sake of political correctness. I dislike both, I just emphasize the latter because their insanity is often overlooked.
"Who needs Satan when you have a God like this?" -- Robert M. Price

"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer
Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:23 pm
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Race

impiku wrote:Well, that's not always the case. To me, depicting people that are say, for restricting immigration as racists are the emotional ones.


That depends on the means employed by those people who impose restrictions. It's fine if you wanna restrict immigration, but it's another thing wen you say "I wanna impose restrictions just on those brown folks over there..."

Whether it's systematic or personal, it's still racism.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:35 pm
sensusPosts: 2Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:43 am

Post Re: Race

I find it amazing that those most liberal, most "enlightened," (as they certainly believe themselves) tend to absolutely disregard any Darwinian, sociological implications that evolution obviously has with respect to this issue.

Though race is perhaps a less-important factor than other genetic characteristics, what is plainly obvious from evolution is that kin-selection and natural selection as driving forces behind evolution invariable lead to the opposite of the reverence for equality that liberals so fervently defend.

What's more, even a conception of human rights is completely contrary to evolution, being that it effectively eliminates the process by which maladaptive genes are "weeded out." Taken to its logical extreme, this becomes the cultivation of mediocrity.

Due to the pre-Darwin, Lockean ideas (mere secularization of Judeo-Christian values) of individual freedom and liberty upon which liberal democracy is founded, the largely emotional position taken by advocates of ideas such as the starter of this thread are completely exposed.

Certainly he ignores such studies as, for example, this:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:30 am
SquawkModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2011Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:25 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: Race

Sensus, tell me, why should something contrary to evolution be considered wrong? Surely you're not implying that evolution should be the byword on morality?

If you are, why?
Pope Rat: "Exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

Squawk response: "O Rly?"
Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:25 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Race

sensus wrote:I find it amazing that those most liberal, most "enlightened," (as they certainly believe themselves) tend to absolutely disregard any Darwinian, sociological implications that evolution obviously has with respect to this issue.

Though race is perhaps a less-important factor than other genetic characteristics, what is plainly obvious from evolution is that kin-selection and natural selection as driving forces behind evolution invariable lead to the opposite of the reverence for equality that liberals so fervently defend.

What's more, even a conception of human rights is completely contrary to evolution, being that it effectively eliminates the process by which maladaptive genes are "weeded out." Taken to its logical extreme, this becomes the cultivation of mediocrity.

Due to the pre-Darwin, Lockean ideas (mere secularization of Judeo-Christian values) of individual freedom and liberty upon which liberal democracy is founded, the largely emotional position taken by advocates of ideas such as the starter of this thread are completely exposed.

Certainly he ignores such studies as, for example, this:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx


Suddenly I feel like this HeyRuka thing on Youtube has spilled over here...or maybe it's just coincidence.

Sqwak is asking some good questions there. Personally I feel like Humanity is certainly self deterministic enough to no longer be bound by much of what once drove our evolution when we were flinging feces at each other. I find it hard to believe that people who think themselves better than "liberals" are suggesting we go back and succumb to mindless animal urges. Why is becoming free from some evolutionary aspects inherently a bad thing? What's wrong with being selfless beyond your perceived "race"? Altruism is found in nature and is also a quality given to us by evolution. It isn't opposed to it. Perceiving evolution strictly as a competitive construct is narrow minded.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:46 am
sensusPosts: 2Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:43 am

Post Re: Race

I see the science, or the "meat" of what I said was completely ignored. Oh well. Anyway, your objection is completely based upon nonsense.

Do you really think it's possible for organisms unquestionably completely biological to escape their biology? Through what means? Technology?

If a person with huntington's disease reproduces because of our present-day obsession with equal rights, what we are essentially doing is willfully surrendering our biological integrity as a species (by never weeding out maladaptive genes) in favour of "equal rights."

Why are a bunch of atheists and skeptics defending this conception of secularized Christian morality? I'd posit that it's an emotional reaction to the way you were raised.

Perhaps there can be some solace in the fact that the freedoms allowed by equality can lend themselves to technological advances which could counter our disrespect for our biological limitations.
Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:53 am
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Race

You've got to love how racists don't care about their racism, they just spin it into a partisan political issue. I guess the same way that people think that climate science is a left/right issue.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:23 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Race

ImprobableJoe wrote:You've got to love how racists don't care about their racism, they just spin it into a partisan political issue. I guess the same way that people think that climate science is a left/right issue.


And now they're trying to justify it with "evolution". There's no end to this new cultural insistence on regression. Becoming the very antithesis of progressivism to new extremes.

"Ah the good ol' days. When corporations could drive you like a slave."

"Ah the good ol' days. When plutocracy was the way to build a society."

"Ah the good ol' days when Human-like apes weren't afraid to be racists."

sensus wrote:I see the science, or the "meat" of what I said was completely ignored. Oh well. Anyway, your objection is completely based upon nonsense.

Do you really think it's possible for organisms unquestionably completely biological to escape their biology?


What? How is it nonsense? You wanna talk about "meat"? How about you look up programmed cell death. Go and see how biology isn't limited to this glorified ego centric system of yours. Having a non-competitive character is not outside the bounds of biology.

Also what do you propose with this article? We unconditionally hail our East Asian brethren as the cognitively superior race of the world? Where does that get us? Will they improve global civilization in some way that no one else with an average IQ can do? Is it not possible for someone with just a "good enough" IQ to come up with a good idea at the right time? Now I don't know about you, but I can admit to meeting or knowing of people who probably do have a higher IQ than I do, but some of them had the dumbest ideas in their heads....some of them were even....creatards! **gasp** Egad, can you believe it?!

Furthermore, genetics is something that Humanity as whole is coming to understand and manipulate to a pretty impressive degree if I may say. What's to stop us from just giving everyone high IQs? Why is your "nature" the only arbiter of human evolution?

Why are a bunch of atheists and skeptics defending this conception of secularized Christian morality? I'd posit that it's an emotional reaction to the way you were raised.


You must mean "Humanism", and it's a concept that is independent of any religion. If history is any lesson you'll find that religion wasn't much for it. In fact, you might find that this segregationist mentality is something you share with it. So the mere act of you aligning us with religion would be comically ironic, if it weren't sad.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Last edited by televator on Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:58 am, edited 6 times in total.
Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:38 am
ImprobableJoeUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Race

televator wrote:
And now they're trying to justify it with "evolution". There's no end to their insistence on regression. Becoming the very antithesis of progressivism to new extremes.

"Ah the good ol' days. When corporations could drive you like a slave."

"Ah the good ol' days. When plutocracy was the way to build a society."

"Ah the good ol' days when Human-like apes weren't afraid to be racists."


If it isn't one way to justify sociopathic disregard for others, it is another. If it isn't "black people are naturally inferior so equality and human rights are nonsense" it is "we're all just animals subject to evolution, so equality and human rights are nonsense."

I don't care what bullshit justification they come up with, if your conclusion is "equality and human rights are nonsense" then there's something wrong with them.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:05 am
televatorUser avatarPosts: 1252Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:02 amLocation: In hell, rocking out with Satan! Gender: Cake

Post Re: Race

Well....well...well...



Looks like the tea party/Koch brother corporatist sock puppets are at it again. Image This country is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better...if ever.
a·the·ism: The absence of belief in god(s)

There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism.
Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:20 am
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Race

This question has stumped me too. There are more answers here: What is Racism. (It was one of my first threads here, actually). It's really interesting to read everyone's perspective on race and racism when clearly defined.

The topic becomes entwined in ethnicity and nationality to a point where there doesn't seem to be any possible way to measure it scientifically. A lot of people say "they look/act differently and are persecuted for it."
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:45 am
JTBBannedUser avatarPosts: 46Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:40 pm Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Race

kenandkids wrote:if I and another "white" person near me are genetically compared, then we will have a statistically greater chance of genetic difference than I and the nearest "black" person standing near me



So you mean to tell me that any Swede and any Kenyan are likely to be more genetically similar than two Swedes or a Swede and a Norwegian?

How, then, can SNPs determine racial makeup? How can the Jews claim that DNA testing proved it was Jews in the well?


Eastern russians and Ukrainians are considered white, yet they have mongoloid (no, not retarded or Down syndrome) genetic material


And? The existence of hybrids does not disprove the existence of either parent stock. Also, Eastern Russians who appear White are likely to originate elsewhere. Perhaps you mean West Russians?
for the people that confuse a human's paint-job with her race, this means that the "white" russian immigrant is likely less similar to the "white" German immigrant than either is to "black" guy sitting next to them


No shit. This doesn't prove your point- it proves the existence of Race as real racial realists know it to be. You have to understand the history of human migration and racial evolution and interbreeding to understand it, though. Seriously, you're being quite dishonest by comparing the descendents of two different groups to leave Africa to eachother and then arguing that the fact that each is more similar to the parent stock than they are to eachother somehow disproves the reality of race. The fact is that this is exactly what we should expect to see.

You're arguing like a creationist.

Another idiot idea, and one that WAS brought up in the other thread, is that some "races" have evolved "more" than others. In the other statements, an allegation that some races had evolved more intellectually than others. This doesn't pass any bullshit test


It does, however, pass repeated clinical tests that find differences in average IQ across the major races. It also fits the model of limited heritability of IQ and the recent studies that prove that the potential for high IQ (which can be prevented from developing by diet or other environmental factors) is largely determined by genetics.

Also keep in mind that European races (primarily Nords and Alpines) are the result of crossbreeding and integration between Cro Mangnons and the Neanderthals whereas the Negroids only have these genes if they possess White DNA. Hence Whites are a hybrid species whereas the Negroid race is not.
. In Africa, intelligence made us viable competitors for food and territory. Africa has a great (the greatest?) collection of large and violent creatures that can compete with humans for both food and territory. I


And Europe had another intelligent humanoid species- another member of homo to compete with. One more example of your dishonesty and you'll be dismissed and I'll waste no more time on you.
Canines can breed together,

As can homo neanderthalis and homo sapiens (this resulting in the subspecies of homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens) or Ursus arctos horribilis and Ursus maritimus (the Grizzly and Polar Bears). That doesn't even make them the same species- and nobody's denying that all existing humans are not the same genus- indeed, they are by definition, as 'human' means a member of the genus homo.
Humans are like this, different paintjobs, differences in minor aspects of appearance


And other ways. this is why Bidil works better in blacks, why blacks have higher levels of testosterone and why they have different breeding habits than the other races (including different means of rearing their young, opting for quantity of offspring over investment in their young- a natural evolutionary difference resulting from their different natural environments). it also explains their different natural temperments.

televator wrote:I don't like the concept of breaking humanity up into "sub-race" categories. We are Human. That's a race

No, it refers to our genus.

I'm human.


As was homo erectus.
Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:22 am
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Race

ImprobableJoe wrote:
televator wrote:
And now they're trying to justify it with "evolution". There's no end to their insistence on regression. Becoming the very antithesis of progressivism to new extremes.

"Ah the good ol' days. When corporations could drive you like a slave."

"Ah the good ol' days. When plutocracy was the way to build a society."

"Ah the good ol' days when Human-like apes weren't afraid to be racists."


If it isn't one way to justify sociopathic disregard for others, it is another. If it isn't "black people are naturally inferior so equality and human rights are nonsense" it is "we're all just animals subject to evolution, so equality and human rights are nonsense."

I don't care what bullshit justification they come up with, if your conclusion is "equality and human rights are nonsense" then there's something wrong with them.


Throughout history factions have 'demonised' their enemies by likening them to animals. As a broad example, the Nazi propoganda likened Jews and other undesirables to 'rats,' rodents and animal species of different kinds, and this somehow excused their treatment of these groups and allowed for lack of conscience. I'm sure the same kind of thing may go on today within war, or even within tense political competition, because it's easier to justify some things when groups are dehumanised, than to kill someone who one can empathise with.

The 'fighting' or 'competition' seems to me more the reason for the demotion of certain people to lower beasts than any real scientific evidence as well (why this pisses a lot of folks off I think). To back up your point in words I better understand. :)

To know what racism is, what race is, or what motivates it, is only part of solving the problem, and ignoring it tends to make it fester.

AFAIK, race has no solid scientific background. Some physical characteristics sometimes associated with race are considered on a medical level, when dealing with fundamental physiological trends.
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:31 am
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 12
 [ 227 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests