PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: RussianVodka on March 11, 2005, 12:46:04 am
-
It realy upsets me to see how few people fit on the thin line between racism and ignorance.
Let me explain by using the standard white guy/black guy comparison.
You see, on one spectrum of racism, you have those people who think that one color of person is better then the other. I dont think I have to explain the classic concept of the white person thinking the black one is worthless shit, and visa-versa.
But the racism that pisses me off, is the kind that people tend to not notice. Like when you see a person say something racist against another \"type\" of people, and to cover it us he will say something like \"Oh, its ok.. One of my best friends is black/white.\" It\'s like you\'re saying that this specific person is not like any of your other friends because of their skin color.
Or when on television when a company wants to show how people-friendly they are, they ALMOST ALWAYS show the black guy, white guy, and asian girl. But then again, I guess true diversity comes from people that look different... not from those who have different ideas/opinions. :rolleyes:
Then there is the other side of the spectrum. It\'s those ignorant people that will NEVER admit that there is in fact a difference between people\'s nationalities. They will never admit that these people have been treated differently through out history. They will never admit that people are being treated differently now. They are completely blind to the fact that racism does exist. Some may argue that there is nothing wrong with those people, and that they are not doing the world any harm. But on the other hand ignoring that an enemy existed, lead to WWII... go figure.
Ok, by the time I finished, I forgot why I was writing this... I think it had something to do with there being few decent people when it came to segrigation... But I\'m sure you\'re smart enough to figure out the moral of the story on your own.
P.S. I just used blacks and whites cuz this is the most common picture of racism in America... They can be substituded by Jews/Muslims, Men/Women, McDonalds/Burgerking, and many others.
-
I\'d have to say that in my personal experience, I noticed that second group of people a lot more in the east(eastern Europe, etc.) than in the west. I\'m sure they exist there, too, though.
By the way, I just noticed your sig, and had to reply to it. The proper answer would be....
13. 1 to answer the question. 4 to argue about the answer. 4 to flame the newbie. Aendar to warn that the thread will get locked. 2 to flame Aendar for being over zealous. Moogie to lock the thread.
-
I must admit that when I first see a black male, if he is dressed poorly(like a \"gangsta\" ) I probably won\'t expect much good of him.
I must also admit that I think asians are cool.
(I suspect asians perform better in school because A:They\'re immigrants or children of immigrants, and B:Asia places more value on education. This is just my rich white man\'s theory though, so don\'t take anything I\'m saying here too seriously.)
We all know of course, that all white americans either want to be black or asian. When\'s the last time you heard someone say they were proud to be white? :P :baby:
Don\'t forget those people who think that all of Europe is France, Germany, and Britain; and that all of Asia is China and Japan; and that all of Africa is one giant third-world country.
Anywho, there are some genetic grounds for varying medical treatments and what to watch for problems, but they\'re not huge, and not a justification for any other discrimination.
-
Oh why must we even speak of this racisim, makes me sick...and also let me say this racisim works both ways and seems to start by one race leaning against the other and then generations later it turning the other way around. For example...
White Vs. Black
Certain Black Societies of the world were oppressed by the \"White Man\" years upon years ago. Since then things have changed, very few white people take racisim againsts black people much anymore. If anything we have \"Black\" people being racist towards \"Whites\", ok they could be mad some of them perhaps the ones who have experienced it but so many live in the past. You have \"Black\" people potraying themselves in rap songs, movies, televisions, BET as hard thug ghetto living people oppressed purely by the white man. Really its all a bunch of crap don\'t blame crap on others for your own bad choices in life or the situations you were born into like living in a bad neighbor hood.
Bah Sorry getting alittle off topic but I see so much of this crap, everytime I pass the BET: Black Entertainment Television I just want to toss the damn television out the window. We want to be equal and have color not matter?! OK?! Lets make a channel focused on ONE race and have all the material on it talking it up about oppression and the evil whitie -_-
Bah whatever...continue on ^^
-
Originally posted by Monketh
When\'s the last time you heard someone say they were proud to be white? :P :baby:
I\'m proud as hell to be white :) i can sunburn from lamp-light! (still am proud though)
and i agree with phalanx on the whole BET thing.. i mean i get the SPANISH channels because they speak a whole other language.. a black/white channel thing is kinda pointlesss.. neither of us need our own channels as we all speak the same language (cept cajuns.. i love you guys but c\'mon now... XD) and i also get the mens and womens channels men and women think fundelmentaly diffferent.. and without \"spike\" i wouldn\'t be watching MXC and i would be very pissed :P
But then again i hate all \"gangsta being held back by the man\"s even the poor trash white people.. its not skin.. its a type of person.. i judge them on thier actions and thoughts just like the good doctor dreamed of :) and i find them absolutely revloting on those thoughts and actions
i try my hardest to be on the very thin line (dont have to try hardly at all though.. i was raised on captian planet and PBS :D )
EDIT: also being a liberal i find gangtas racist to even other \"gangtas\" and ongodly misogynistic.. and again being the resident \"pinko hippy long-hair commy love everybody tree-hugger femi-nazi unamerican sissy\" i find that fundimentaly wrong :(
-
Stereotyping is ignorence, generaly hateing and dislikeing any race for no good a reason is racesium. ( well thats how i define it)
calling someone a chink, sand digger, towel head and/or other insults just for the heck of it, is called being a ba*******
so form a phantasy point of view, high headed pointy eared elves are ignorent, deamons and The F.O.E (forces of evil) are raceist and orcs being orcs just hate everything eals cause they arn\'t to bight to hate anything less then equally and are thus ba******* :D
-
i see alot more white people and asian people dressing up like \"gangsta\" then black people.
and racism still occurs, racists acts have calmed abit down but there have been numerous incidents of racism in this day and age.
-
What i currently find disturbing is the growing hatred towards muslims. I know its not racism in technical sense, but it does not make it less wrong.
And yes there are muslims who refuse to integrate isolate themselves and form a threat to our democracy. And it should be possible to say that mohammed had sex with a kid without being murdered for it. But i dont see what it accomplishes to be so undisrespectfull as some are to the islam.
People should be judged by whom they are not the groups they belong to. So positive discrimination is also wrong imho.
-
Originally posted by dimaq
***YAWN***
*kicks dimaq\'s river styx loving ass*
im not proud to be white. (Im part lots of things but mainly white) I dont see how race is ever anything to be proud of, its not an achievement, its not something like when your five years old and you come home from school and say \"Look mum im a latino!\" \"oh well done dear, here lets stick you on the fridge next to your last A+ in RE\"
Id also like to take this post as a chance to point out there is a large genetic difference between people of different race. We are not all equal physically, as people seem to say. Its not just skin colour and outer physical make-up. And yet to talk about this is still hard today because of certain assholes beliefs of superiority.
-
Originally posted by KwartzTheKran
Id also like to take this post as a chance to point out there is a large genetic difference between people of different race.
I\'d like to that this post to say how wrong you are O.o there is less then a .2% (or 2% i forget pretty sure its .2% though) genetic diffference in all races.. the whole \"some races are better at this\" thing is total BS :)
Blacks arent taller faster can\'t jump higher or play sports better or have a bigger you-know-what... its just that south east africa has a genetic leaning to being tall (which makes you better at physical stuf anyway.. and being larger mean to scale certian strains of african getics have bigger.. \"stuff\") and just also happens to have the genetic leaning to being blacks there are also black pygmies so :P
Whites arent shorter, geekier, or unable to dance or have a rythm (and if rythm is todays \"i be\'s rid\'n in my escalade g-thugg\'n it yo! smack\'n ma bitchits with my money telling my ho to make me a sammitch! pimp ma ho\'s killing tha foos who gets in ma way cuz imma hard gangsta of tha street!\" then thats ok i dont want your \"rythm\" :/ ) What of beethoven, Motzart? Trance :P ?
No Asians are no all short... only the japanese where and thats because on a island with no large preditors all creatures tend to shrink (since they dont need to be big to fight just to live its more practicle to be smaller, you take less space and less food.. also in japan being an island they wheren\'t getting some nutrients that also aided in this) and they have since almost grown up to the worlds \"average\" size, They aren\'t smarter better at fighting or able to fix a computer (refer to the MAD TV skit \"the average asian\" :P )
Muslims are NOT hateful... i have met many muslims in fact muhammed taught just as much peace as jesus did... i mean osama bin laden v. jerry falwell O.o we cant say we dont have our extreme religious hate-mongers
Its just in third world there are the poor people follow whatever says will get them a better life just so they can survive... basicaly brainwashed.. like is germany bad for being decieved by hitler? are muslims bad for being decieved by thier sellers of hate? are WE bad for saying \"jesus loves everyone but god hates queers?\" \"muslims are out to get us lets kill em all\" \"they attacked us lets ship em all on a boat back to where-ever-the-hell-thier-from\" all things i heard in and aroud sept. 11.. is that the way to honor the legacy of our dead? to USE them and thier martyrhood to further our own sick hatred complex?
that about all thier is to say about that right now :)
EDIT: i also say the poor gravitiate to the extremes that say they will help... Well how the hell do you think bill o\'riely isn\'t told to \"STFU\" and how do you think our \"Jihad Zealots\" (right wing gay hating chritianity which i might add you aren\'t protecting family values.. in fact modern christianity was formed so henry viii could divorce whenever he wanted so you guys just shut it) propogate and multiply themselves? It just goes to show its easier to see the wrong in others than to see that very same wrong in ourselves ;)
-
if you see a chart of the avarage sizes of penises in the world you will see a tremendous different in size from one part of the world to another.
-
Altharion ! you have to watch your language or .. or they\'ll get you ! *stares hard into the shadows expecting ninja moogie to jump out and spilt Altharion\'s head in half*
:P
-
- Exactly, you just proved yourself wrong! .2% !-Thats a huge difference, we share 98.6% of genes with chimpanzees!
As an example the average white person has more than 1500 extra gene varients in their immune system over your average black person! - do some research on diseases and racial patterns, including allergies and diseases. Skin tolerance levels are far higher in darker skins and in terms of skin sensitivity are less.
- The fact is some races do have advantages if you take the average, the average black has an advantage over the average east asian when it comes to basketball because of their height, the average white has an advantage over the average black when it comes fighting diseases (With the emergance of aids many thought it was a goverment conspiracy to kill off blacks as many whites were seemed not as susceptible). This is most obvious in the unequal distribution of disease-associated alleles for certain recessive disorders, such as sickle cell disease or Tay-Sachs disease, but has also been noted recently for certain nonmendelian disorders, such as Crohn disease.
But people are scared to say things like this because of ass holes in the past like Hitler with twisted views, people are different! and its not a bad thing!
- my point is there could be far more differences but people are scared to do the research. Hell they could maybe have found a cure for me and my nan.
-
well your also .2% geneticaly different from your own grandmother so :P technicaly speaking your just as close to her as you are to anybody you care to name ;)
granted that what you said about black over east asian at basketball.. but thats not from RACIAL genetics thats from REGIONAL genetics from te area they where born... most blacks are born tall and most asians short because of where they live.. take an east asian family and move them here and you notice that thier grandchildren are about the same hieght/wight as all other americans (unless they where like those freaky \"marry your own race from the same town or be killed by god\" types)
so yes you are correct in a technicle way.. and also technicaly .2% is quite a bit but not THAT much that its a BIG difference.. more like a small-medium difference... i mean the nearest animal to us (apes) is like 10% off and they are relativly close to us so :P is 10% is close then .2% isn\'t far :D
-
can you show me this evidence to support regional over genetic? Celts were tall, romans were short, I find it hard to believe this was an enviromentally effective variable.
-
ya i like the saying their are two people i hate.. racists and black people.
maybe there is so much focus on racism because their hasnt been a world war in a long time. All the asians and blacks and americans and europeans should gang up and start a massive five way war, then their would be no racism
-
Technically Ikarsik, Americans are asians, blacks, and europeans.
I must say that the media actually \"sells\" stereotypes (such as white-men can\'t dance and all blacks are ghetto).
I wonder though, if white males actually created trance. :P
-
Originally posted by KwartzTheKran
can you show me this evidence to support regional over genetic? Celts were tall, romans were short, I find it hard to believe this was an enviromentally effective variable.
wel id find it hard to pull up a page as i have no clue where t look... but think about it.. if 3 generations of your family are short... then what are you going to be? by regional i mean affected by the enviroment then passed down via \"famliy line\" becaue technicaly a \"race\" is just a bigassed interbreeding family :P (ok they are different enough for it to still have enough fresh genes..but basicaly most people from a country have similar \"famliy atributes\" that they all share which what makes them similar.. but not automaticaly all-inclusive IE some families of rome where quite tall for the time period and have stayed taller then the average to this day)
-
Okay, masters in biology, you\'re kinda wrong. The difference between the human races are insignificant, and mainly does not count and exists from different reasons.
Black people are black, from the simple fact they mainly lived in areas where the heat was very high, due to this fact they adapted at this. Their skin is darker, and it\'s more resistant than others at heat and some radiations.
And despire white, black and asian, there are dozens of other types you know, but we\'re all the same. We share the same genetic code.
And no, we are not sharing anything common with the monkeys, because we have many DNA chains they don\'t have, and it was kinda impossible to evolve from them, because we can\'t have them and they don\'t have them. Also, in time it\'s impossible to loose them as well. When you \"evolve\" some genes goes to recessive form, but they don\'t dissapear.
Meh, don\'t argue because I am specialized in the biology - chemestry area. Racism? Nah, just some idiot people who doesn\'t know why they really exist, that have some \"moral\" problems :rolleyes:
-
Hey Annah, just want to clear something up.
You say we could not have evolved from monkeys and cite differences in DNA. I suppose you are refering to the fact that we are more related to apes than monkeys. If that is the case, you are correct. If not, I beg to respectfully disagree with you.
It is true that are sequences in human DNA that are not present in ape DNA. However, that is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. This is neither the time nor place for the argument, but there is no inconsistency in the theory.
And yes, I will cite my own expertise: I work for Kenneth Lange, one of the modern geniuses of mathematical genetics. Also, I\'m working for Victoria Sork, an emminent oak tree geneticist. So you can trust me when I talk about genetics...
-
We have DNA chains that monkeys don\'t have and vice versa because of evolution. We didn\'t directly evolve from them, but we did evolve from their ancestors, as they evolved from our ancestors.
-
right :) and you are right annah about WHY color is different.. i was stating why height and such is semi race specific not that they are.
and wow buddha thats rather impressive :D i have been meaning to break into genetics but my extensive orgone work doesn\'t allow addition time for the MANY things i study and genetics n_n;; (Art, Biology, Parapsycology, Linguistics, Military Tactics, Gunsmithing, Machine Shop, Farming Work, Engineering, Forestry, Computer hardware, Music Making, Anti-NWO research and Forum posting.. just to name 5% of what i do/study in a given day O.o ) But orgone and psioncs take up about 50% of all my time XD (its so damn extensive ;( exciting and fruitful but long and arduous)
-
I suppose you are refering to the fact that we are more related to apes than monkeys.
Put the problem how you want. Both ways I am stating my words. You have to understand (mostly because you say you are proficient in this area) that everything are just pure theories. Nothing is for sure aye? If it was, then it was a fact, not a theory.
Maybe we evolved from flowers :rolleyes:
And stopping being sarcastic, there even was a theory that said everything \"is created\" from \"nothing\", theory that was believed by most of the people until few centuries ago. Why was unique, is because it was the 1st one that didn\'t have to do with religion, and the implications of a supernatural being. Besides, there are dozens of other theories than the evolutionist one. So, which one is the correct one? Maybe one of them, maybe all of them, maybe none ...
We have to trust the evolutionist theory only because there are some facts explained by science that couldn\'t be explained in the past? Ever thought of what \"science\" will find in the future? Also, there are other theories regarding our \"life\" around here, that have the support of science as well, so ...
And Xordan, the main problem of the evolutionist theory, like I said, is the \"missing DNA chains\". They do not dissappear, they are going into recesive ( \"hidden\" ) state. And this is said by the science :P
-
Just like that episode of Star Trek TNG where the T cell caused all reccesive genes to.. oh um O.o OMG LOOK OVER THERE!!!!!! *runs and hides in his little trekkie closet :P *
-
ah? Damn trekkies ... :P
PS - I don\'t have a clue about what you\'re talking about. You know, not everyone is watching Star Trek, so, care to explain? :D
-
Q owns so much ass :D
anyway http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68648.html
-
Well, this thread is taking that path, so I\'ll participate.
Let me first say that, though I may disagree with some people on this topic, it does not mean I have no respect for their opinions. Everyone has the right to choose to accept or not accept modern science, and that is solely their perogative.
Now, regarding the fact/theory distinction. I think this is one that is not clearly understood by most people. Notice that gravitation, evolution and electromagnetism are all theories where gravity, dna and electrons are all facts. A theory is a method of describing facts. For instance, we all know that things fall to the ground, but noone is really sure why. Simillarly, we can demonstrate (yes, we can) that living creatures exhibit changes in their dna in response to selective pressures. Also, dna holds the fundamental information for the creature. Thus, things evolve. This is a demonstrable fact. Why? That\'s the subject of evolutionary theory.
Once again, I don\'t fault anyone for not accepting these things. However, when you turn on a light, you are impliciting accepting the theory of electromagnetism (since you are causing the flow of electrons). WHen you hit your brakes on your car, you are implicitly accepting the theory of gravity (since it causes friction) and, like it or not, when you eat a potato, you are implicitly accepting the theory of evolution (since potatoes have been put under evolutionary pressure to be non-toxic).
Personally, I like to implicity accept the theory of evolution with mayonaise and balsamic vinegar.
-
The electromagnetism, as well the gravitation are facts, not theories. And yes, a theory is a method of explaining facts, from the point of view of the one who releases the theory. Of course, like always will happen, there are people that will support it, and others that will oppose it. This is inevitable, and that\'s the way things are working.
Though, having someone that shares some beliefs with you, doesn\'t mean you are right. You say you don\'t fault anyone for not accepting these things, but in a subtile way, even if you don\'t want it, you are pressing them to accept the evolutionist theory.
Nothing is certain, and that\'s why it\'s still a theory. This is something you cannot compare with things we can still study, that still exists, things that we do not understand yet. This is something totally different. I doubt you can go back in time and see how the human race came around.
Like I said, there are dozens of theories, each of them having something \"logical\" in them. But, didn\'t you ask yourself? After all, what means \"logical\"?
we can demonstrate (yes, we can) that living creatures exhibit changes in their dna
Yes of course, we can. But you have to understand that DNA chains simply do not dissappear, they merely change, going into recesive state, evolving if you like this word.
I for example, I am not embracing any theory, I like to form my own ...
-
DNA chains actually do disappear. This is why we can use microsatellites for genotyping. With the insertion and deletion of sections of dna, microsatellite analysis would be impossible.
I agree I am subtlely pressuring people to agree with me. That is why I was sort of reluctant to joint this thread, because I generally like the people around here and save my shouting matches for elsewhere.
Gravity => fact. Gravitation, the method of explaining gravity => theory.
Electrons => fact. Electromagnetism => theory.
Genetic response to selection pressure => fact. Evolution => theory.
And I totally agree that there are many many things we don\'t understand yet. The best you can do, if you are interested in things like this, is come up with consistent, testable and useful theories to explain what we know now.
It\'s the usefullness test that really needs to be passed. That means, can it anticipate new information and point us in directions of discovery? Evolution passes this test again and again.
From a philosophical point of view, there is no need to accept evolution. The goal of evolutionary theory is to explain, in the most concise and efficient way possible, the natural world around us. If that is your goal, you need to work with evolutionary theory. If it is not, then it is not necessary. I mean, not everyone is a natural scientist, right? In contrast, we all need to accept that murder is bad.
I seriously hope this is not generating any bad blood. That is not my intention. I feel that polite people can have contrary discussions. Impolite people, on the other hand.... I have had some flame wars with people I thought a bit rude on other threads.
-
Nah, don\'t worry, we\'re just having a conversation, and I hope no rude person will interffere, with flames or things like these.
Gravity => fact. Gravitation, the method of explaining gravity => theory.
A fact cannot be explained by something that still is a theory, because it won\'t be a fact anymore. It will be an application of a theory.
And I meant that DNA chains do not dissappear in time, if organisms are \"evolving\" like some said.
-
Wow, you\'re fast.
A theory is a body of work meant to describe observations. So we see things fall, and we can describe the speed of their fall approximately 32 ft /sec^2. The falling is a fact, the 32 ft/ sec^2 is the theory bit. That\'s where the distinction comes in.
It\'s true that this is not the common definition of the word \"theory\", but when in a scientific context, our language has to change. For instance, people use the term \"energy\" in a multitude of ways, but if you\'re talking physics, it cannot mean \"life force\". Once you enter that arena, the terminology becomes specific. This is very common problem.
Now, once again I have to disagree with you. It is possible to loose large chunks of dna even over one generation. Microsatellites are an example of little chunks, and I\'m trying to think of an example of the former...
-
It is possible to loose large chunks of dna even over one generation.
Only if the organism is exposed on a long period of time to radiations.
In rest, I agree with you about the \"definition\" of the word theory.
* EDIT *
Though, there were a few cases where segments disappeared during the DNA replication process. But this could have been an anomaly, and it can\'t be considered a fact yet.
You mentioned some time ago about apes. I\'ll give you an example. They don\'t have the DNA chain that provides the creation of the \"laringe\" (I can\'t say atm how is named in English), so therefore they cannot speak. Though, we have it. Evolution?
-
I believe you\'re looking for the word \"larynx\". Yeah, that\'s a neat case. I remember reading an article once where they illustrated how the larynx could drop once the skull was re-seated on the neck. The theory was that the reason apes don\'t have a larynx was because the base of the skull was too close to the vocal chords.
I don\'t know the details. My impression was the the dna for the larynx is present but not expressed. This isn\'t my field of expertise, though.
There are birth defects where children are missing parts of a chromosome. That is a (relatively) enormous amount of genetic data. Not all of this children are sterile.
Also, think of this. If the probability of loosing a large chunk of dna in one generation is p, and p is very small. Then the probability of loosing a large chunk over n generations is
1-(1-p)^n
When n get big, the probability of loosing a large chunk goes to 1. Thus, even if it\'s an anomaly, as you mention, there are literally trillions of generations being spawned every year over every species, and even the most improbable descent is going to happen eventually. Couple that with the millions of years we\'ve been on this planet and you cannot exclude it happening at all.
-
Heh, indeed is something interesting, and I that can\'t exclude. Though, I don\'t embrace it also.
There are birth defects where children are missing parts of a chromosome. That is a (relatively) enormous amount of genetic data. Not all of this children are sterile.
Yes, but these are isolated cases and they express at some generations. Though, the fenotype is heavily affected by the modification of the structure and number of the cromozomes.
Let\'s take the most known case, which is the one where the 21 pair of cromozomes is affected, this would be the Down syndrome. In this pair it can easily be seen the three cromozomes. But like I said, these are isolated cases and insignificant to the number of the \"normal\" population, and it cannot influence it. And in few cases the person lives over 50 y.o. in this case.
Turner syndrome? Only women are affected, and they have 45 cromozomes. Though, they\'re incapable of reproduction.
I can give you many examples, but I\'ll come to the same thing: it\'s insignificant compared to the normal population, that is not affected by them.
-
Yes, I totally agree that it\'s insignificant compared to the total population. In fact, all of evolution theory is based on very small changes in dna over long periods of time.
This is what we call the Sidewalk Lemma in probability theory.
IF you have a non-zero chance of being killed by a car every time you cross the street, THEN you will cross the street a finite number of times.
Even very improbable things will happen eventually. How soon? Well, that\'s open to debate. The point is, there have been lots and lots and lots... of opportunities for change in our genetic structure. Eventually, the small changes add up. Noone is expecting a child to be born with gills in the near future, but it could happen over millions of years.
Although it would be cool!
-
We can discuss about this over and over, but I doubt we\'ll solve the mystery of our creation :)
It\'s kinda late, and I have to study at history for tomorrow, then to take a bath and err, to sleep :P
Buddha, it was a pleasure having this conversation with you on this matter, and who knows, maybe we\'ll have others in the future as well.
Farewell for now,
Antonio.
-
Ciao, good luck in history. It\'s nice to have civil discourse on these things once in a while.