Apparently, diversity is white genocide.
Discussion
Some of the arguments about "racial" differences being an evolutionary adaptation to environment have been shown to be massively overstated :
Patagonian indigenes have dark skin despite living in a near-arctic climate.
Central American indigines were relatively short-limbed and endomorphic despite living in a sub-tropical environment.
North African semites are lighter skinned than south african negroes.
There are many more examples to be found.
Patagonian indigenes have dark skin despite living in a near-arctic climate.
Central American indigines were relatively short-limbed and endomorphic despite living in a sub-tropical environment.
North African semites are lighter skinned than south african negroes.
There are many more examples to be found.
mattnunn said:
4v6 said:
Take people as you find them. There, wasnt that easier?
easier yes, but entirely wrong, you've exactly what I describe, do not take people as YOU find them because you will undoubtly project onto them you own prejudice of reality, take them as they are, not as YOU interpret them to be through the prism of your angst self identity.
As iroc says, pretty much left wing bowlocks.
If I meet someone for the first time and I judge them by their actions, character, demeanour and general ways, itd surely be wrong to "project my own prejudices of reality" onto them and assume something different about them, no?
In the first instance I can ONLY take people as I find them, in other words their first impressions upon me are what sets me up to judge them further, theres no other way as far as I can see.
Some might say youre a pseudo intellectual bore but if they get know you better they may find out you are indeed, they of course may not.
Unfortunately, first impressions are all people have to go on, further experience of them then confirms the impression or denies it.
s2art said:
Pappa Lurve said:
s2art said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Am I missing something here? Seems to me like some people seem to think there are "breeds" of human!
Of course there are (or at least something approximating to the concept of 'breed').The 'breeding' is caused by the environment in which they have evolved for many thousand years. Hence differing body plans and skin colour for people who come from very hot parts of the world compared to people who have lived in very cold parts of the world. Just an example. Only people who deny the theory of evolution can disagree.
AW111 said:
Patagonian indigenes have dark skin despite living in a near-arctic climate...
If I'd had to guess a reson for the evolution of thir darker snkin, I'd hazard it is the piercingly bring, high-altitude, equatorial sunlight. Just a guess though.AFAIK, modern genetic techniques prove, at least to my satisfaction, that whatever current geographic origination or skin tone, we are all of very, very closely related original human ancestors.
That or we were put here by lizards.
I suppose the long and short of it all is if you get different breeds of dog, you must get different breeds of human. Bit of a crap way to look at it though, don't you think? Aren't we all human beings who have evolved and adapted to our surroundings?
I tend to judge someone if and when I know enough about them. It isn't fair for me to do anything else because I don't like it when people judge me without knowing anything about me. Or in extreme circumstances, if you judge me just by the colour of my skin, then I suppose you can be judged in the same manner.
Unless I'm driving, then everyone's a
!
I tend to judge someone if and when I know enough about them. It isn't fair for me to do anything else because I don't like it when people judge me without knowing anything about me. Or in extreme circumstances, if you judge me just by the colour of my skin, then I suppose you can be judged in the same manner.
Unless I'm driving, then everyone's a
!Breeds of human is a huge claim.
It is obvious what my vuiews are on this but I want to be very clear in the questins I have asked which are not yet answered - or not that I have spotted so if they have been, please show me where so I can apologise!
1) Breeds - a scientific term requiring back-up. I do not consider that for example, Asians are a different "breed" to say Eskimos. COuld be wrong of course but if you going to claim that to be true, one must I would think, be able to back that up.
2) Still noone else going to define "them" and "us"? A lot of people seemed happy to use the terms yet wont define it. Perhaps that in itself is a message.
3) Who decides? Can;t be the majority as what majority? what is the measure?
4) No go areas - other than one anecdote which is not proof of anything, nor is it possible to check if the story is even correct, nor was there any indication it is a no go zone for anyone not of the ethniticty of the present house owners - there has been, that I have seen, no single attempot to back up an claim I consider to be at best, very inflamatory.
People - this is the whole point - if one wishes to discuss subjects like this yet people cannot even provide the remotest back-up of fact for their views, nothing more than a vague feeling from what I can see, then how can the debate ever take place as it needs to by which I mean sensibly?!
Not saying I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I am not, but if my eyes are to be opened other views then surly some kind of backup or even the ability to deifne who these terrible "them" are might be a helpful step.
It is obvious what my vuiews are on this but I want to be very clear in the questins I have asked which are not yet answered - or not that I have spotted so if they have been, please show me where so I can apologise!
1) Breeds - a scientific term requiring back-up. I do not consider that for example, Asians are a different "breed" to say Eskimos. COuld be wrong of course but if you going to claim that to be true, one must I would think, be able to back that up.
2) Still noone else going to define "them" and "us"? A lot of people seemed happy to use the terms yet wont define it. Perhaps that in itself is a message.
3) Who decides? Can;t be the majority as what majority? what is the measure?
4) No go areas - other than one anecdote which is not proof of anything, nor is it possible to check if the story is even correct, nor was there any indication it is a no go zone for anyone not of the ethniticty of the present house owners - there has been, that I have seen, no single attempot to back up an claim I consider to be at best, very inflamatory.
People - this is the whole point - if one wishes to discuss subjects like this yet people cannot even provide the remotest back-up of fact for their views, nothing more than a vague feeling from what I can see, then how can the debate ever take place as it needs to by which I mean sensibly?!
Not saying I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I am not, but if my eyes are to be opened other views then surly some kind of backup or even the ability to deifne who these terrible "them" are might be a helpful step.
Digga said:
AW111 said:
Patagonian indigenes have dark skin despite living in a near-arctic climate...
If I'd had to guess a reson for the evolution of thir darker snkin, I'd hazard it is the piercingly bring, high-altitude, equatorial sunlight. Just a guess though.AFAIK, modern genetic techniques prove, at least to my satisfaction, that whatever current geographic origination or skin tone, we are all of very, very closely related original human ancestors.
That or we were put here by lizards.
And breed is a very specific term: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
Bill said:
And breed is a very specific term: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
It also implies someone taking control of the process, a 'breeder'.Digga said:
AW111 said:
Patagonian indigenes have dark skin despite living in a near-arctic climate...
If I'd had to guess a reson for the evolution of thir darker snkin, I'd hazard it is the piercingly bring, high-altitude, equatorial sunlight. Just a guess though.AFAIK, modern genetic techniques prove, at least to my satisfaction, that whatever current geographic origination or skin tone, we are all of very, very closely related original human ancestors.
That or we were put here by lizards.
Is David Ike a breed all of his own?
If we all came from Lizards, does that mean that the Bible is wrong?!
I am so confused now!!!!!!!!!!
(slow day at work!)
Pappa Lurve said:
Breeds of human is a huge claim.
It is obvious what my vuiews are on this but I want to be very clear in the questins I have asked which are not yet answered - or not that I have spotted so if they have been, please show me where so I can apologise!
1) Breeds - a scientific term requiring back-up. I do not consider that for example, Asians are a different "breed" to say Eskimos. COuld be wrong of course but if you going to claim that to be true, one must I would think, be able to back that up.
2) Still noone else going to define "them" and "us"? A lot of people seemed happy to use the terms yet wont define it. Perhaps that in itself is a message.
3) Who decides? Can;t be the majority as what majority? what is the measure?
4) No go areas - other than one anecdote which is not proof of anything, nor is it possible to check if the story is even correct, nor was there any indication it is a no go zone for anyone not of the ethniticty of the present house owners - there has been, that I have seen, no single attempot to back up an claim I consider to be at best, very inflamatory.
People - this is the whole point - if one wishes to discuss subjects like this yet people cannot even provide the remotest back-up of fact for their views, nothing more than a vague feeling from what I can see, then how can the debate ever take place as it needs to by which I mean sensibly?!
Not saying I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I am not, but if my eyes are to be opened other views then surly some kind of backup or even the ability to deifne who these terrible "them" are might be a helpful step.
Re your point 1) I dont think the term "breeds" is particularly useful or helpful as a descriptor of different enthnic groups, "ethnic identity" might be a better one?It is obvious what my vuiews are on this but I want to be very clear in the questins I have asked which are not yet answered - or not that I have spotted so if they have been, please show me where so I can apologise!
1) Breeds - a scientific term requiring back-up. I do not consider that for example, Asians are a different "breed" to say Eskimos. COuld be wrong of course but if you going to claim that to be true, one must I would think, be able to back that up.
2) Still noone else going to define "them" and "us"? A lot of people seemed happy to use the terms yet wont define it. Perhaps that in itself is a message.
3) Who decides? Can;t be the majority as what majority? what is the measure?
4) No go areas - other than one anecdote which is not proof of anything, nor is it possible to check if the story is even correct, nor was there any indication it is a no go zone for anyone not of the ethniticty of the present house owners - there has been, that I have seen, no single attempot to back up an claim I consider to be at best, very inflamatory.
People - this is the whole point - if one wishes to discuss subjects like this yet people cannot even provide the remotest back-up of fact for their views, nothing more than a vague feeling from what I can see, then how can the debate ever take place as it needs to by which I mean sensibly?!
Not saying I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I am not, but if my eyes are to be opened other views then surly some kind of backup or even the ability to deifne who these terrible "them" are might be a helpful step.
The term "breed" seems somehow demeaning, almost derogatory.
Having said that the term "born and bred" is still in common use but I think maybe we're getting hung up too much on words rather than meanings maybe.
Point 2) I thought I had a pretty good pop at it?
If you refer to any group I'm having a hard time seeing how else you can refer to them, with the the terms "them and us" not flagging up any particular issues to me as the terms not being used in any way negatively, I dont see what youre driving at there to be honest.
Point 3) Parrot whoosh time for me unfortunately.
Point 4)The story is correct as far as I know, it was after all a relative of mine ( deceased) who related it and I have no reason to distrust the information and they were less than biased towards other groups being of the live and let live ethos.
No one used the words "no go areas" as I recall.
Bill said:
Digga said:
AW111 said:
Patagonian indigenes have dark skin despite living in a near-arctic climate...
If I'd had to guess a reson for the evolution of thir darker snkin, I'd hazard it is the piercingly bring, high-altitude, equatorial sunlight. Just a guess though.AFAIK, modern genetic techniques prove, at least to my satisfaction, that whatever current geographic origination or skin tone, we are all of very, very closely related original human ancestors.
That or we were put here by lizards.
Although it was based on the lighting in the excleent film, Bombon: El Perro: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420548/
Pappa Lurve said:
s2art said:
Pappa Lurve said:
s2art said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Am I missing something here? Seems to me like some people seem to think there are "breeds" of human!
Of course there are (or at least something approximating to the concept of 'breed').The 'breeding' is caused by the environment in which they have evolved for many thousand years. Hence differing body plans and skin colour for people who come from very hot parts of the world compared to people who have lived in very cold parts of the world. Just an example. Only people who deny the theory of evolution can disagree.
4v6 said:
Pappa Lurve said:
Breeds of human is a huge claim.
It is obvious what my vuiews are on this but I want to be very clear in the questins I have asked which are not yet answered - or not that I have spotted so if they have been, please show me where so I can apologise!
1) Breeds - a scientific term requiring back-up. I do not consider that for example, Asians are a different "breed" to say Eskimos. COuld be wrong of course but if you going to claim that to be true, one must I would think, be able to back that up.
2) Still noone else going to define "them" and "us"? A lot of people seemed happy to use the terms yet wont define it. Perhaps that in itself is a message.
3) Who decides? Can;t be the majority as what majority? what is the measure?
4) No go areas - other than one anecdote which is not proof of anything, nor is it possible to check if the story is even correct, nor was there any indication it is a no go zone for anyone not of the ethniticty of the present house owners - there has been, that I have seen, no single attempot to back up an claim I consider to be at best, very inflamatory.
People - this is the whole point - if one wishes to discuss subjects like this yet people cannot even provide the remotest back-up of fact for their views, nothing more than a vague feeling from what I can see, then how can the debate ever take place as it needs to by which I mean sensibly?!
Not saying I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I am not, but if my eyes are to be opened other views then surly some kind of backup or even the ability to deifne who these terrible "them" are might be a helpful step.
Re your point 1) I dont think the term "breeds" is particularly useful or helpful as a descriptor of different enthnic groups, "ethnic identity" might be a better one?It is obvious what my vuiews are on this but I want to be very clear in the questins I have asked which are not yet answered - or not that I have spotted so if they have been, please show me where so I can apologise!
1) Breeds - a scientific term requiring back-up. I do not consider that for example, Asians are a different "breed" to say Eskimos. COuld be wrong of course but if you going to claim that to be true, one must I would think, be able to back that up.
2) Still noone else going to define "them" and "us"? A lot of people seemed happy to use the terms yet wont define it. Perhaps that in itself is a message.
3) Who decides? Can;t be the majority as what majority? what is the measure?
4) No go areas - other than one anecdote which is not proof of anything, nor is it possible to check if the story is even correct, nor was there any indication it is a no go zone for anyone not of the ethniticty of the present house owners - there has been, that I have seen, no single attempot to back up an claim I consider to be at best, very inflamatory.
People - this is the whole point - if one wishes to discuss subjects like this yet people cannot even provide the remotest back-up of fact for their views, nothing more than a vague feeling from what I can see, then how can the debate ever take place as it needs to by which I mean sensibly?!
Not saying I am correct, maybe I am, maybe I am not, but if my eyes are to be opened other views then surly some kind of backup or even the ability to deifne who these terrible "them" are might be a helpful step.
The term "breed" seems somehow demeaning, almost derogatory.
Having said that the term "born and bred" is still in common use but I think maybe we're getting hung up too much on words rather than meanings maybe.
Point 2) I thought I had a pretty good pop at it?
If you refer to any group I'm having a hard time seeing how else you can refer to them, with the the terms "them and us" not flagging up any particular issues to me as the terms not being used in any way negatively, I dont see what youre driving at there to be honest.
Point 3) Parrot whoosh time for me unfortunately.
Point 4)The story is correct as far as I know, it was after all a relative of mine ( deceased) who related it and I have no reason to distrust the information and they were less than biased towards other groups being of the live and let live ethos.
No one used the words "no go areas" as I recall.
1) agreed 100% but I was hoping that peole would think about the term breed and understand we are all basically the same thing!
2) you did indeed mate. No one else that ised the terms tried. With respect though, and I mean that genuinly, I think those terms show the fundamental issue. How can one debate and issue, the core of which is encapsulated in temrs such as "us" and "them"? The vast majority of humans do not fit into easy groups. Example - my best mate is a French / German. He also holds 2 other passports, has lived in around 10 different countries outside Europe and a couple inside, his parentsd came from different countries, he grew up in another country still, several hundred miles away from his family, he is a minority faith whihc he follows to some extent but does not follow the perciened view that external people think that group would hold. I am even more of a mogral than him in some ways. So how can you say who is "us" etc. The only universal "us" is members of the human race. Period.
3) Sorry - I was not very clear. Us and them need to be defined, so who does the defintion? My issue with that is simple - the EDL stood up and claimed it spoke for the British Public. I am a member of the British Public and on the surface appear as a white anglo. The EDL do not, never have and never will, represent my views. Who on earth do they think they are to say they represent us?! Define us or it is a pointless term and the person who defines it simply cannot say who "us" is unless one includes every human being. The closest one could get is things like age groups, passports, etc but that is not what is meant in this case simply becuase it is impossible to define which to me, rather shows the futility of the debate on that level.
4) I am not doubting your story at all. I am simply pointing at that anyone who wishes to can walk happily along that street, buy a house there is one is for sale etc. People have referd here to areas which appear to be exclusive to one group yet seem very bad at bnacking that up - mainly cos they cant! With respect, all your tale tells us is that people wanted to live there and others got the hump! You only know one persons view and that view is not, with respect enough to indicate the area is now in effect restriceted to "them".
4v6 - my comments both here and previously are not aimed at you personally at all. They are meant only to ask that people with certain views, ones different to mine clearly, examine those views closely and perhaps understand that we are all essentially the same things. If "us" and "them" cannot be defined, if proof is often nothing more than one isolated story told by one or two people, if facts cannot be presented to at least legitimise certain views then the debate becomes increasingly thin.
To sum up perhaps - a discussion where groups of people are refered to as us and them when noone has any way of stating who they mean is utterly futile. I may define being British for example as something totally different to that which others may define it as. Are they right? Am I?
Us and them leads to a view that the us is somehow better / more deserving etc than the them (at least on this kind of topic) and that is wrong, dangerous and cannot lead anywhere good that I can see.
McWigglebum4th said:
mattnunn said:
How else can you explain Yorkshire folk having webbed feet?
So not happy with hating the welsh you are now having a go at those from yorkshireYou really are a little ball of racism and hatred
Pappa Lurve said:
I cant do the multiple quotes thing that you do, so I apologise for not breaking this down better!
1) agreed 100% but I was hoping that peole would think about the term breed and understand we are all basically the same thing!
2) you did indeed mate. No one else that ised the terms tried. With respect though, and I mean that genuinly, I think those terms show the fundamental issue. How can one debate and issue, the core of which is encapsulated in temrs such as "us" and "them"? The vast majority of humans do not fit into easy groups. Example - my best mate is a French / German. He also holds 2 other passports, has lived in around 10 different countries outside Europe and a couple inside, his parentsd came from different countries, he grew up in another country still, several hundred miles away from his family, he is a minority faith whihc he follows to some extent but does not follow the perciened view that external people think that group would hold. I am even more of a mogral than him in some ways. So how can you say who is "us" etc. The only universal "us" is members of the human race. Period.
3) Sorry - I was not very clear. Us and them need to be defined, so who does the defintion? My issue with that is simple - the EDL stood up and claimed it spoke for the British Public. I am a member of the British Public and on the surface appear as a white anglo. The EDL do not, never have and never will, represent my views. Who on earth do they think they are to say they represent us?! Define us or it is a pointless term and the person who defines it simply cannot say who "us" is unless one includes every human being. The closest one could get is things like age groups, passports, etc but that is not what is meant in this case simply becuase it is impossible to define which to me, rather shows the futility of the debate on that level.
4) I am not doubting your story at all. I am simply pointing at that anyone who wishes to can walk happily along that street, buy a house there is one is for sale etc. People have referd here to areas which appear to be exclusive to one group yet seem very bad at bnacking that up - mainly cos they cant! With respect, all your tale tells us is that people wanted to live there and others got the hump! You only know one persons view and that view is not, with respect enough to indicate the area is now in effect restriceted to "them".
4v6 - my comments both here and previously are not aimed at you personally at all. They are meant only to ask that people with certain views, ones different to mine clearly, examine those views closely and perhaps understand that we are all essentially the same things. If "us" and "them" cannot be defined, if proof is often nothing more than one isolated story told by one or two people, if facts cannot be presented to at least legitimise certain views then the debate becomes increasingly thin.
To sum up perhaps - a discussion where groups of people are refered to as us and them when noone has any way of stating who they mean is utterly futile. I may define being British for example as something totally different to that which others may define it as. Are they right? Am I?
Us and them leads to a view that the us is somehow better / more deserving etc than the them (at least on this kind of topic) and that is wrong, dangerous and cannot lead anywhere good that I can see.
Ha! The multiple quote things really easy, it must be if even I can do it. 1) agreed 100% but I was hoping that peole would think about the term breed and understand we are all basically the same thing!
2) you did indeed mate. No one else that ised the terms tried. With respect though, and I mean that genuinly, I think those terms show the fundamental issue. How can one debate and issue, the core of which is encapsulated in temrs such as "us" and "them"? The vast majority of humans do not fit into easy groups. Example - my best mate is a French / German. He also holds 2 other passports, has lived in around 10 different countries outside Europe and a couple inside, his parentsd came from different countries, he grew up in another country still, several hundred miles away from his family, he is a minority faith whihc he follows to some extent but does not follow the perciened view that external people think that group would hold. I am even more of a mogral than him in some ways. So how can you say who is "us" etc. The only universal "us" is members of the human race. Period.
3) Sorry - I was not very clear. Us and them need to be defined, so who does the defintion? My issue with that is simple - the EDL stood up and claimed it spoke for the British Public. I am a member of the British Public and on the surface appear as a white anglo. The EDL do not, never have and never will, represent my views. Who on earth do they think they are to say they represent us?! Define us or it is a pointless term and the person who defines it simply cannot say who "us" is unless one includes every human being. The closest one could get is things like age groups, passports, etc but that is not what is meant in this case simply becuase it is impossible to define which to me, rather shows the futility of the debate on that level.
4) I am not doubting your story at all. I am simply pointing at that anyone who wishes to can walk happily along that street, buy a house there is one is for sale etc. People have referd here to areas which appear to be exclusive to one group yet seem very bad at bnacking that up - mainly cos they cant! With respect, all your tale tells us is that people wanted to live there and others got the hump! You only know one persons view and that view is not, with respect enough to indicate the area is now in effect restriceted to "them".
4v6 - my comments both here and previously are not aimed at you personally at all. They are meant only to ask that people with certain views, ones different to mine clearly, examine those views closely and perhaps understand that we are all essentially the same things. If "us" and "them" cannot be defined, if proof is often nothing more than one isolated story told by one or two people, if facts cannot be presented to at least legitimise certain views then the debate becomes increasingly thin.
To sum up perhaps - a discussion where groups of people are refered to as us and them when noone has any way of stating who they mean is utterly futile. I may define being British for example as something totally different to that which others may define it as. Are they right? Am I?
Us and them leads to a view that the us is somehow better / more deserving etc than the them (at least on this kind of topic) and that is wrong, dangerous and cannot lead anywhere good that I can see.
Hmmm points 2 and 3 I'm still struggling with to be honest.
I can only postulate that as societies as a whole use those terms thats what basically decides, its not down to any person or organisation, it just is the way it is.
I'm english and I'd be able to refer to the welsh or scots as "them and us" without any particular significance being placed on the two words themselves as the differences in language and culture are readily apparent to me when either of them speak.
To me it appears your hinting the words have some ulterior meaning, maybe I just dont get it, it wouldnt be the first time.
4v6 said:
I can only postulate that as societies as a whole use those terms thats what basically decides, its not down to any person or organisation, it just is the way it is.
The latter part of the sentence is a cracking song.Back on topic, society has changed quite a bit over the last few decades. Not more than 75 years ago mass genocide was the norm across much of the globe. And only 25 years ago, so-called civilised nations still had racial quotas on immigration. Today, you can get arrested for being a Spurs supporter.
Problem is I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are probably grew up in an environment when it was still okay to refer to a black person as a n****r ? Think it was becoming unpopular if not uncommon when I was at school. And I'm often surprised at how PC World my younger relatives are nowadays.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff