Racism & Other Prejudices

[Shinji lover]

its really not at all ridiculous. the differences we see in races are all results of environmental impact. we all descended from blacks, and when they began to spread across the globe the color of their skin changed due to sun exposure in new locations. in cold areas. white people are descended from people who have been genetically built in colder locations, giving them an advantage over somebody in of african american descent in modern times. im not saying its science fact that the white man is going to survive or do better, im saying its science fact that the white man has the chance to do so and if i had to put my money down on one dealing with the temperature id go with the white guy.

theres nothing racist or ridiculous about that, if you think so then id have to ask you to prove a large majority of the scientific community wrong.

 

[shy ♡]

its really not at all ridiculous. the differences we see in races are all results of environmental impact. we all descended from blacks, and when they began to spread across the globe the color of their skin changed due to sun exposure in new locations. in cold areas. white people are descended from people who have been genetically built in colder locations, giving them an advantage over somebody in of african american descent in modern times. im not saying its science fact that the white man is going to survive or do better, im saying its science fact that the white man has the chance to do so and if i had to put my money down on one dealing with the temperature id go with the white guy.

theres nothing racist or ridiculous about that, if you think so then id have to ask you to prove a large majority of the scientific community wrong.

You realize white people live in hot places too right.

 

[Shinji lover]

You realize white people live in hot places too right.

thats irrelevant. evolution doesnt take place over a single lifetime, or even multiple lifetimes. at least not on a noticeable scale. it seems like my post went over your head.

 

[shy ♡]

thats irrelevant. evolution doesnt take place over a single lifetime, or even multiple lifetimes. at least not on a noticeable scale. it seems like my post went over your head.

Uh, what? No. Jews are white. We've always lived in hot places. Please try to make sense. Also, assuming that I am 'stupid' because I disagree with you is just not a good way of making your point.

 

[Les Review]

Skin color relative to geography is a common belief, I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with it. Someone derived from Scandinavia, like myself, is considerably whiter than someone from, say, the Bahamas.
The reason for different skin colors is for different protection from the sun. The darker you are, the more protected you are from it. People evolved in accordance to their location and different exposures.

EDIT: That being said, race goes hand in hand with climate. So saying that a darker or 'black' person from a place like Africa would have less of a chance surviving in Antarctica than a lighter or white person from New England.

 

[Adriane]

Can you explain how that is even marginally relevant to the topic at hand? We are dealing with social issues, not physical differences that don't actually amount to much of anything.

 

[Les Review]

Physical differences lead to the social issues? The topic is racism, which deals with skin color.

 

[Shinji lover]

Uh, what? No. Jews are white. We've always lived in hot places. Please try to make sense. Also, assuming that I am 'stupid' because I disagree with you is just not a good way of making your point.

jews are not a single race. there are arab jews, who do in fact have darker skin tones, and those who were dispersed throughout europe nearly 2000 years ago. these two denominations live in israel now.

i never said you were stupid, i said you didnt understand my last post. which you didnt if you disagree. the things im posting arent opinions, its scientific data. when you live in a colder climate for long periods of time your skin gets lighter to help absorb vitamin D. what happened when africans began migrating was micro evolution, through the generations their skin got lighter and lighter to suit their environments. this is why every white person has african american dna in their genetics, and races don't exist beyond environmental impact.

here are a few sources to help you understand;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)
http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/beingjewish.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060810165732AA0ZL1D

Can you explain how that is even marginally relevant to the topic at hand? We are dealing with social issues, not physical differences that don't actually amount to much of anything.

The title has racism in it which involves race. Physical differences are what racism is based on. the social issues wouldnt exist without the things we are discussing because otherwise wed all be the same.

 

[Mendatt]

jews are not a single race. there are arab jews, who do in fact have darker skin tones, and those who were dispersed throughout europe nearly 2000 years ago. these two denominations live in israel now.

i never said you were stupid, i said you didnt understand my last post. which you didnt if you disagree. the things im posting arent opinions, its scientific data. when you live in a colder climate for long periods of time your skin gets lighter to help absorb vitamin D. what happened when africans began migrating was micro evolution, through the generations their skin got lighter and lighter to suit their environments. this is why every white person has african american dna in their genetics, and races don't exist beyond environmental impact.

here are a few sources to help you understand;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)
http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/beingjewish.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060810165732AA0ZL1D

... I'm fairly sure that I've seen this need to be posted at least three times in the past few days, but the "If you disagree you didn't understand my argument" statement is a good way to make no one pay attention to your argument.

 

[Les Review]

... I'm fairly sure that I've seen this need to be posted at least three times in the past few days, but the "If you disagree you didn't understand my argument" statement is a good way to make no one pay attention to your argument.

Can you explain how that is even marginally relevant to the topic at hand?

 

[Shinji lover]

... I'm fairly sure that I've seen this need to be posted at least three times in the past few days, but the "If you disagree you didn't understand my argument" statement is a good way to make no one pay attention to your argument.

if you ignore my argument because of that id call you childish. ive provided sources for my argument, and ive been very civil. theres no reason not to hold it to the same level as anybody elses. id say it should be respected even more so for not letting my personal feelings take over like ive noticed a lot of people here do.

i wonder if alvyren will tell you your post is off topic, or if shes specifically targeting those whose opinions dont agree with her own? either way, thanks for the tip, but it seems a bit unnecessary for you to tell me my argument isnt as good while not contributing anything yourself.

 

[Mendatt]

if you ignore my argument because of that id call you childish. ive provided sources for my argument, and ive been very civil. theres no reason not to hold it to the same level as anybody elses. id say it should be respected even more so for not letting my personal feelings take over like ive noticed a lot of people here do.

i wonder if alvyren will tell you your post is off topic, or if shes specifically targeting those whose opinions dont agree with her own? either way, thanks for the tip, but it seems a bit unnecessary for you to tell me my argument isnt as good while not contributing anything yourself.

Yeahsure. I have no doubt that Alvyren will tell me that my post was off topic, I just felt that it needed to be said. Also, I didn't say that your argument was bad, (Although I should have,) I simply said that the way you phrased a part of it was. I didn't contribute anything because there wasn't anything to contribute to, simply you saying "This is what I think, and everyone who disagrees with it is wrong". Sorry for going off topic, now back to the land of sense.

what about someone's right to be happy? if you call someone a racial slur it is harmful and pretending it isn't is... silly. punching someone also does none of those things, so I'm not really sure what you mean here. arguably someone's quality of life comes into it somewhere, and I would definitely call being racist to people affecting their quality of life?

Punching someone does not interfere with their life, liberty, or property: It can injure, or cause pain, at the least, butt it does not interfere with any of those. Calling someone a racial slur causes emotional pain, but still doesn't interfere with life, liberty, or property.
... Basically, this clearly isn't a good guideline to go by. You could chop someone's arm off and it wouldn't go against these.
I like the idea of comparing via the 'Affecting their quality of life" standard. Punching someone causes pain. Pain is rarely enjoyed, takes time to go away, and while still there definitely decreases the quality of one's life, even if only slightly. Calling someone a racial slur causes emotional pain, which is, in my opinion, just as bad. Therefore, I suppose, the punishment for name-calling and verbal bullying should be the same as the punishment for roughhousing and fisticuffs and so forth.

 

[Eloi]

Earlier you said that democracy consists of a bunch of mean old 'bullies'.
Now you're saying that democracy is totally repesentative of what's good and right.
So do you only agree with 'bullying' people you don't agree with? Or if the government goes against your views in some way, is it suddenly because society is terrible and evil?

I never claimed that majority opinion was good and right, and indeed, I remain steadfast in maintaining that there is an absolute value of what is good and public opinion does not wholly reflect it. By you believing me upholding government-as-majority as something that is good without me stating as much is begging the question.

 

[Shinji lover]

Yeahsure. I have no doubt that Alvyren will tell me that my post was off topic, I just felt that it needed to be said. Also, I didn't say that your argument was bad, (Although I should have,) I simply said that the way you phrased a part of it was. I didn't contribute anything because there wasn't anything to contribute to, simply you saying "This is what I think, and everyone who disagrees with it is wrong". Sorry for going off topic, now back to the land of sense.

i dont think it needed to be said. i was responding to others replies to my original post, and you came in with an off topic post to tell me my argument is bad even though you've disregarded all of it except one thing, which actually has nothing to do with the argument.

i dont think its racist to recognize differences in different races. pretending they dont exist is silly because its physically undeniable. taking it further and supposing a race is superior to another is what id call racist.

putting a black man from africa and a white man from new england in antarctica, it isnt racist to expect the white man to survive longer putting all things into perspective. on an intellectual level they may be equal, however biologically having descended from people living in colder temperatures, the white man has an advantage. recognizing that isnt racist.

its really not at all ridiculous. the differences we see in races are all results of environmental impact. we all descended from blacks, and when they began to spread across the globe the color of their skin changed due to sun exposure in new locations. in cold areas. white people are descended from people who have been genetically built in colder locations, giving them an advantage over somebody in of african american descent in modern times. im not saying its science fact that the white man is going to survive or do better, im saying its science fact that the white man has the chance to do so and if i had to put my money down on one dealing with the temperature id go with the white guy.

theres nothing racist or ridiculous about that, if you think so then id have to ask you to prove a large majority of the scientific community wrong.

thats irrelevant. evolution doesnt take place over a single lifetime, or even multiple lifetimes. at least not on a noticeable scale. it seems like my post went over your head.

jews are not a single race. there are arab jews, who do in fact have darker skin tones, and those who were dispersed throughout europe nearly 2000 years ago. these two denominations live in israel now.

i never said you were stupid, i said you didnt understand my last post. which you didnt if you disagree. the things im posting arent opinions, its scientific data. when you live in a colder climate for long periods of time your skin gets lighter to help absorb vitamin D. what happened when africans began migrating was micro evolution, through the generations their skin got lighter and lighter to suit their environments. this is why every white person has african american dna in their genetics, and races don't exist beyond environmental impact.

here are a few sources to help you understand;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(c...f_human_beings)
http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismb...eingjewish.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0165732AA0ZL1D

if these posts equate to 'this is what i think, and everyone who disagrees with it is wrong'

then what are these posts?

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

You realize white people live in hot places too right.

Uh, what? No. Jews are white. We've always lived in hot places. Please try to make sense. Also, assuming that I am 'stupid' because I disagree with you is just not a good way of making your point.

in my posts i explain and cite why i am right, in these posts the users make claims and dont back them up while being condescending. i dont see how you could assume my argument is the worst other than it being pack mentality, or sucking up.

 

[Eloi]

i dont think it needed to be said. i was responding to others replies to my original post, and you came in with an off topic post to tell me my argument is bad even though you've disregarded all of it except one thing, which actually has nothing to do with the argument.









if these posts equate to 'this is what i think, and everyone who disagrees with it is wrong'

then what are these posts?







in my posts i explain and cite why i am right, in these posts the users make claims and dont back them up while being condescending. i dont see how you could assume my argument is the worst other than it being pack mentality, or sucking up.

in my posts i explain and cite why i am right, in these posts the users make claims and dont back them up while being condescending. i dont see how you could assume my argument is the worst other than it being pack mentality, or sucking up.

Well, I'll bite.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying, that is:

Ax. 1: Observations of the existence of race is not unethical, and in fact, the concept of race is real.
Ax. 2: Estimating differing potential based on race when related to environments that predispose race is not unethical either, and is in fact quite applicable, and can be demonstrated with particular instances of people.

I do not dispute the ethic implications of Ax. 1 or Ax. 2, however, there is problem with the information contained in the axioms in that they beg the question, that is, its a premise based on the premise it supposes being true in the premise itself. As well, how one defines race is an not an assessed factor in the premises yet it is a factor in the premises, therefore it is atactic assumption, the tactic assumption being that we define race as observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color and can still be related to contemporary affairs, thus making your argument, with the factor assessed, the following:

Ax. 0-1: Race is observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color.
Ax. 0-2: Race is still an applicable concept as race and environments still correlate in current times.
Ax. 1: Observations of the existence of race is not unethical, and in fact, the concept of race is real, as per Ax. 0.
Ax. 2: Estimating differing potential based on race when related to environments that predispose race is not unethical either, and is in fact quite applicable, and can be demonstrated with particular instances of people. This can be demonstrated because race is observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color.

Thus all of the axioms rely on each other, and not logical deduction from each other, thus making it a case of circular reasoning as well.

Thus, a more logical formulation would be:

Ax. 1: Race is observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color.
Ax. 2: People still occupy the environments they evolved in, and thus race is still an applicable concept as race and environments still correlate in current times.
Ax. 3: Deductions quantifying race as a factor in relation to survival in certain environments is thus valid.

However, I dispute Ax. 2 due to:

A) The slave trade causing displacement between race and environment correlation.
B) Colonization in general causing a very large displacement between race and environmental correlation.
C) Misc. diasporas not caused by the above also do so.

Thus, your job is not to prove the causation of environment to race validating the concept as currently applicable, but to prove the contemporary correlation of environment to race validating the concept as currently applicable.

-phew- I hope this was the kind of debate you wanted. ^^;

 

[Music Dragon]

Yeah, sorry, but there's obviously a reason why different skin colours even exist in the first place (although, as far as I recall, the reasons aren't quite fully understood yet) and I'm fairly certain it's been confirmed that darker skin offers better protection against the sun (but may cause vitamin D deficiencies?). Don't let political correctness get in the way of common sense - people of different skin colours are different, because they have different amounts of melanin (or whatever it is, ask your local dermatologist) in their skin.

Of course, this is only barely relevant to the topic at hand, but nevertheless.

 

[Eloi]

Yeah, sorry, but there's obviously a reason why different skin colours even exist in the first place (although, as far as I recall, the reasons aren't quite fully understood yet) and I'm fairly certain it's been confirmed that darker skin offers better protection against the sun (but may cause vitamin D deficiencies?). Don't let political correctness get in the way of common sense - people of different skin colours are different, because they have different amounts of melanin (or whatever it is, ask your local dermatologist) in their skin.

And if the lighter skinned person is wearing more clothing or sunscreen than the darker skinned person, wouldn't this proposed universal be violated? The *causation* is skin protection, but in the particular people there is not a universal *correlation*.

 

[hopeandjoy]

While that is true, it has nothing to do with whether a white person or a black person would survive better in Anartica. The amount of pigment just determines if you naturally will/will not fry in the sun. If both come from hot enviroments and have no training, they will freeze. If they are both from cold places, they might last longer.

There's no denying that races exist (there's also facial structures that are different), but that does not mean that they might be better at different activites. It takes training to do that.

Also, the Jewish people are one (Middle Eastern) race, but the various diasporas have scattered them and there is the ocassional convert. That is why they tend to have more caucasian fetures. However, they sill identify as one people, regardless of the changes.

 

[Music Dragon]

And if the lighter skinned person is wearing more clothing or sunscreen than the darker skinned person, wouldn't this proposed universal be violated?

Uh... How so? We're talking about skin. What do sunscreen and clothing have to do with this? They don't count as part of your skin, as far as I'm concerned. The skin of the darker skinned person and the skin of the lighter skinned person have different properties. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to specify that one of them is a "lighter skinned person". Why are you even arguing with this?

The *causation* is skin protection, but in the particular people there is not a universal *correlation*.

What... are you talking about? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say (and I'm not just saying that to be a jerk). What is "the causation is skin protection" supposed to mean?

 

[Butterfree]

Well, I'll bite.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying, that is:

Ax. 1: Observations of the existence of race is not unethical, and in fact, the concept of race is real.
Ax. 2: Estimating differing potential based on race when related to environments that predispose race is not unethical either, and is in fact quite applicable, and can be demonstrated with particular instances of people.

I do not dispute the ethic implications of Ax. 1 or Ax. 2, however, there is problem with the information contained in the axioms in that they beg the question, that is, its a premise based on the premise it supposes being true in the premise itself. As well, how one defines race is an not an assessed factor in the premises yet it is a factor in the premises, therefore it is atactic assumption, the tactic assumption being that we define race as observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color and can still be related to contemporary affairs, thus making your argument, with the factor assessed, the following:

Ax. 0-1: Race is observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color.
Ax. 0-2: Race is still an applicable concept as race and environments still correlate in current times.
Ax. 1: Observations of the existence of race is not unethical, and in fact, the concept of race is real, as per Ax. 0.
Ax. 2: Estimating differing potential based on race when related to environments that predispose race is not unethical either, and is in fact quite applicable, and can be demonstrated with particular instances of people. This can be demonstrated because race is observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color.

Thus all of the axioms rely on each other, and not logical deduction from each other, thus making it a case of circular reasoning as well.

Thus, a more logical formulation would be:

Ax. 1: Race is observed evolutionary differences in environments related to skin color.
Ax. 2: People still occupy the environments they evolved in, and thus race is still an applicable concept as race and environments still correlate in current times.
Ax. 3: Deductions quantifying race as a factor in relation to survival in certain environments is thus valid.

However, I dispute Ax. 2 due to:

A) The slave trade causing displacement between race and environment correlation.
B) Colonization in general causing a very large displacement between race and environmental correlation.
C) Misc. diasporas not caused by the above also do so.

Thus, your job is not to prove the causation of environment to race validating the concept as currently applicable, but to prove the contemporary correlation of environment to race validating the concept as currently applicable.

-phew- I hope this was the kind of debate you wanted. ^^;

I really don't understand your reasoning. Shinji lover's argument isn't "white people used to live in cold places, therefore white people still live in cold places, therefore they survive better in cold places"; it's "white people evolved in cold places, therefore they're better adapted to environments with less sun". There is nothing circular about that, and the fact people of all races live all over the place today is irrelevant since they haven't had the time to readapt.

I also don't see why people feel the need to dispute this. The fact is humans aren't all genetically identical. The concept of equality is about treating all people as people instead of discriminating against some phenotypes, based on facts such as that there is much greater genetic variety within races than between them, not about pretending there is no difference at all.