|
Racism rant! (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dmatrox |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
versus
practically different species |
that would be same species. homosapien |
|
|
| Trancer85 |
| ^haha everybody was black once did you guys know that? |
|
|
| ierxium |
| everybody? I'm one color from the day I was born. :conf: |
|
|
| Trancer85 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ierxium
everybody? I'm one color from the day I was born. :conf: |
im talking about when humans just started to exist in this world you homosaphien |
|
|
| ierxium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer85
im talking about when humans just started to exist in this world you homosaphien |
I knew that. :D I just needed to type something stupid. But I thought back then the human species was full of hair, you know, like a monkey. So where did you see the color of the skin? |
|
|
| electrohit |
Argh , Racist people makes me really mad! :mad:
especially old ones who cant get used to it that the world is evolving , meh myself russian and i live in israel and sometimes people try to get a ride on it... but for my luck im not from those weak spirit pearsons so i can fight back... |
|
|
| chavs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It's not a simplification, but rather the fair notion that each one of us is an individual. It just can't get any more accurate than that, as it avoids basic mistakes.
Grouping people according to their physical characteristics leads quite often to misleading conclusions. So, you posted two individuals that belong to "practically different species", right?
 Hair: Both individuals have dark hair. The only difference would be the texture, as the African woman has got curly hair whereas the Korean girl has got straight hair. This difference, though, can be found within the same race - there are white people with straight hair, white people with wavy hair and white people with curly hair. This fact alone invalidates this point. Not to mention the different hair colours people can have.
- Eyes: Both individuals have dark eyes. If anything, you can claim the shape is different, as the African woman's got "round eyes" and the Korean girl's got "narrow eyes". White people have got "round eyes" as well and native Americans also have "narrow eyes" (see pic at the right bit of this post). Differences also happen within races, as eyeshapes do differ from individual to individual and, although I cannot prove it now due to the lack of pictures but I've seen at least a couple of "non-hybrid" Japanese blooded people with "rounded eyes". This fact alone would invalidate this point. Not to mention the different eye colours people can have.
- Skin colour: If anything, skin colour would be the greatest difference between them, but as we all know, this is yet another difference that can be found within races. I know Asian people who have got fairer skin when compared to me and Asian people who have got darker skin when compared to me. The same is valid when it comes to native Americans, and, as weird as it may sound, also to white and black people. A proof of how misleading these labels can be: Usually Far East Asians are known to have "yellow" skin, although the only reason why they're called "yello" is because when the first European travellers got to China, they noticed their clothes were yellow because of a river they cleaned their clothes in. Thus, they were known among them as "yellow" people. Nevertheless my girlfriend's birth certificate declares she's got yellow skin, and my birth certificate declares I've got white skin... and when we compare, our skins' hue are not that difference - in fact, this small difference could be found amongst people from the same race, once again. Yet another fact that could invalidate your theory.
- Body: both individuals belong to the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species, so they're bound to have two ears, one nose, two nostrils, two arms, 10 fingers and 10 toes, et coetera. Even if the shape is different, this is also true for people from the same ethnic groups...
... the list could just go on and on.
- Combinations: So, you may even claim that all these factors alone wouldn't be able to define the person unless they were combined. What about Arabs? Many of them have dark hair, dark "rounded" eyes, white/tanned skin, and straight hair; which happens to be also the description of many individuals from Europe and other parts of Asia/Africa. This is just an example out of many others. You might even take the black and white, but there's a huge gray area.
They certainly can't be from different species...
|
Well, this is the best explanation I have read in long time. But what if "race" was a valid concept? As long as we live togheter we should respect each other. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
I agree that there are some over-simplifications vis-a-vis race, but to deny the existence of race is also over-simplification.
Clearly, different racial groups exist, the existence of which is confirmed by observing different physical features.
Saying there's no such thing as race is like saying the Emperor is wearing clothes, although by plain view he clearly is not. |
Ok ShadoWolf, I'll play ball. First, let's define race.
Scientifically speaking, race is synonymous to subspecies. A subspecies is a "geographically seperate division of a species, members of which would interbreed successfully if they were not geographically seperated." (Both definitions courtesy of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature)
In Homo sapiens, there exist no geographically isolated divisions. Populations from around the world can and do interbreed, as they have done so for thousands of years. Hence, by definition, simple, irrefutable, deductive logic proves that there is no scientific basis for the subclassification of the human species into races.
Proof that racial classifications are a purely sociological construct with not basis in biology also comes in the form of the widely varied perceptions of "race" in different societies around the world. In Brazil, for example, one's "race" can actually change over the course of one's life for example, due to, for example, the accumulation of significant wealth. In Japan, the burakumin are called a "race," despite no genetic or visible differences between them and other Japanese. If race was a genuine, scientifically observable phenomenon, then why is it defined differently all around the globe? The answer, of course, is that the premise is false: race is not a scientifically observable phenomenon.
Another proof that human race is non-existant as a biological phenomenon comes from the classification of the offspring of "racially mixed" couples. If a "white" and a "black" parent have a child, the child is always classified as "black" despite having an equal share of "white" biological components. If race were a genetic, biological characteristic, then this wouldn't be the case.
If race is a "real" phenomenon, why can it only be justified by a priori selective observations (a form of fallacy)?
Nazi scientists invested unthinkable sums of money and hundreds of thousands of man-hours on the development of a "racial science," or, a set of criteria which could be used, with a 100% rate of accuracy, to prove that someone is a member of a particular race. They failed, because there are no such criteria because there are no characteristics that are exclusive to any particular "race."
So, the choice to me seems to be between the two following possibilities:
1. Accept the existence of race based on a priori selective observation, and "common sense", both of which are, incidentally, fallacious forms of reasoning, or
2. Deny the existence of race as inconsistent with biological fact, given that:
- Genetic variation within "races" exceeds genetic variation between "races" by a factor of greater than ten.
- The human species fails to meet the criterion for division into races.
- No set of objective criteria can be used to classify the human species into distinct "races."
- Typical "racial" classifications within a society are purely subjective and entirely based on cultural and anthropological factors.
One of these positions is, just as I said previously:
1. Unjustified - in that the supposed justifications for it are inherently fallacious.
2. Unintelligble - in that no objective basis for the given position exists, and
3. Utterly useless - in that the acceptance of race produces no utilitarian benefit to society.
The other is based on sound scientific understanding and valid logical deduction. The choice is essentially one between ignorance and understanding. But, for better or worse, it's still a choice. I know where I stand - what about you? |
|
|
| |cEbLu3 |
| as usual arbiter makes my brain smile, :) |
|
|
| Radagast |
| Hey, where's cobalt. Shouldn't he be in here attacking the people agreeing with Arbiters rhetoric? Wait, Arbiter didn't make fun of his favorite music genre, my bad. |
|
|
| KilldaDJ |
if i was her, i would of ing hit her one. reguardless of the elderly factor, i dont give a if she was old and in a wheelchair, i still would of hit her.
though im asian and a cripple ROFL (stupid story abt me pulling all the muscles in my body at laser quest)
but there was no reason for that old lady to have a go at her, afterall she apologised and everything.
no respect whatsoever. |
|
|
| Tranz |
 |
|
|
|
|
