Black people

[gabriel.dac]

This thread is big now and I don't have time to read all the messages right now. I'll reply to you in the future, but now I just want to drop this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

I just want to make clear in this post that I do not hate blacks. I don't feel hate. I just can't deny that racial differences do exist.  Just take a look at the size of that article.

[Darvince]

You do realize what the article is saying, right?

[FiahOwl]

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '143640'.

[atomic7732]

the article on 9/11 conspiracies is probably really long too but that doesnt make them all right, or even one of them

[Darvince]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_labour_law Well South African labour law is the most correct thing on Wikipedia, it's an incredibly long article!

[Bla]

This thread is big now and I don't have time to read all the messages right now. I'll reply to you in the future, but now I just want to drop this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

I just want to make clear in this post that I do not hate blacks. I don't feel hate. I just can't deny that racial differences do exist.  Just take a look at the size of that article.

The article is about people who have claimed science supports the view that some races are inferior. That's not the same thing as your claim that they're simply different. I agree there are differencies between people, but not that it makes them inferior.

But if you intended to point out the obvious fact that there are differencies between people - even though it's true, quoting the length of the article is an absolutely nonsensical reason.

I mean, as the others already pointed out, read the article. It has sections about Hegel. It's not like presenting the views of some dim-headed mentally 4-year old philosopher in any way makes racism scientific, there's nothing scientific about Hegel, he basically just sat in an armchair and wrote down an endless obscure and vague flow of words. It doesn't give reasons for viewing races as inferior based simply on the amount of characters used to describe Hegel's clueless worldview. It shouldn't be hard to see how the length of an article about "scientific racism" isn't in itself a good reason to believe in anything.

[Spaceguy888]

I am not racist. I tend to view things in a scientific and statistical way. For instance, there is no doubt that blacks commit proportionally more crimes than others. As I said before, the problem is in their culture and their origins.  As I said in my other post, they never needed to think in their future. In Africa, it was all about hunting and eating, hunting and eating.... while Europeans had to be wiser. They had to stock food for the winter, use their intelligence to built shelters, sew more clothes to protect themselves.

And evidence for that is that in Africa many still walk around naked and never got much past of a mud or wood hut.

As do I. Even though I am black. Well half African American and half Mexican. I am a complete and total mish mash of a nerd, and history and science geek, an anime loving otaku, and a highly spiritual and religious person. Knocking stereotypes out with brain power.  As a scientific person I learned that race does not define who you are but merely what temperature and climate your ancestors adapted to. Evolution is the origin of race. Scientist all agree the original primitive humans came from northeastern Africa. Where they were primitive hunters and gatherers. In the hot African climate they always had dark skin. Which reflected some of the suns heat and light increasing there heat tolerance. Which is a very useful trait in Africa. They migrated during an ice age which lowered sea levels and allowed access to other continents. Then when the little ice age was finished the sea levels rose and access stranded them where they were. The ones stuck in cold places like Europe and Asia had to adapt and their skin ended up white to reflect little to no heat and light. They would need every bit of it to stay warm. People that stayed in hot places like Africa and Australia remained dark skinned. In addition the advancement in technology had nothing to with race or ways of life but merely luck. People who settled Europe and Asia found a surplus of plants and animals that were easy to tame. Such as chickens, sheep, and wheat. People in North America, Africa, and Australia were unlucky and were unable to find plants and animals that could easily be tamed and farmed. With such bad luck they remained hunters and gatherers for a much longer time.

[gabriel.dac]

This thread is big now and I don't have time to read all the messages right now. I'll reply to you in the future, but now I just want to drop this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

I just want to make clear in this post that I do not hate blacks. I don't feel hate. I just can't deny that racial differences do exist.  Just take a look at the size of that article.

The article is about people who have claimed science supports the view that some races are inferior. That's not the same thing as your claim that they're simply different. I agree there are differencies between people, but not that it makes them inferior.

But if you intended to point out the obvious fact that there are differencies between people - even though it's true, quoting the length of the article is an absolutely nonsensical reason.

I mean, as the others already pointed out, read the article. It has sections about Hegel. It's not like presenting the views of some dim-headed mentally 4-year old philosopher in any way makes racism scientific, there's nothing scientific about Hegel, he basically just sat in an armchair and wrote down an endless obscure and vague flow of words. It doesn't give reasons for viewing races as inferior based simply on the amount of characters used to describe Hegel's clueless worldview. It shouldn't be hard to see how the length of an article about "scientific racism" isn't in itself a good reason to believe in anything.

First of all, sorry for not replying to your other messages in this thread. They seem to be well written, but I haven't had the time to read and reply to them.

Anyway, I am really glad to know that you at least understand that people are different. Now regarding your question: "Does it make them inferior?". Well, it depends on what is your concept of superiority. They are human, they have feelings and their happiness aren't worth more than ours. Correct.

[Spaceguy888]

Dude what the guy said was a statement not a qustion.


"I agree there are differencies between people, but not that it makes them inferior."

If someone put used this as a question I would say. The heck do you mean by that? How is that a question?


What he was talking about was "The article is about people who have claimed science supports the view that some races are inferior. That's not the same thing as your claim that they're simply different." He means you should be careful what you post and read through all of the article that you link so that your positive that it is relevant, will make sense, and won't acedently offend anybody.

[Dan Dixon]

Another perspective...
http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/12/1/7313467/chris-rock-interview

[Gordon Freeman]

Think of race as species: all animals are different, but are some worth less than others? No, because when a species disappears the whole system falls apart.

A fish isn't less than a bird for swimming, it's suited for what it's best at doing.

[Jorster]

If mosquitos no longer existed no long term negative consequences would happen 0/10 analogy wold not alanogize again

[atomic7732]

i agree the analogy is poor

extinction (in the past) has been natural

and comparing race to species to a racist is probably not helpful to your point and racists probably have less concern for the treatment of animals when they dont even consider all humans worthy of the same respect