or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread - Page 36

post #526 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Suicide bomber in Medina. No figures on casualties yet.

Bomb detonation in Qatif (heavy Shia population).

Also suicide bomber in Jeddah by the US Consulate.
post #527 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post


The US Republican presidential candidate

And everything else relating to government, since we live in a democracy. That's not a small amount of your life, since gov directly collects and allocates about 40% of GDP, and influences far more than that via regulation.

Democracy is basically a cage that locks us in with the animals. I'd rather be in here with the golden retrievers (and black labs,) not pit bulls.
post #528 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Suicide bomber in Medina. No figures on casualties yet.

Bomb detonation in Qatif (heavy Shia population).

Also suicide bomber in Jeddah by the US Consulate.

Can we not call these assholes Muslims now???

I mean they bomb the holiest sites in the holiest month of Islam...killing Muslims

Saudi had to deal with three incidents in one day, Kuwait the day before spoiling a plot and Iraq the day before where more than 200 died..

It's 2016 but feels like 1984
post #529 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANIKETOS View Post

Can we not call these assholes Muslims now???

I mean they bomb the holiest sites in the holiest month of Islam...killing Muslims

Should we stop calling abortion bombers Christian extremists because some of the people they've killed over the years have followed some form of Christianity?
post #530 of 1314
Humans are the only animal without evolved cognitive and behavioral differences based on geography, gender and social structure. To believe otherwise is racist and sexist.

Now come on, let's go make fun of those stupid creationists.
post #531 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Humans are the only animal without evolved cognitive and behavioral differences based on geography, gender and social structure. To believe otherwise is racist and sexist.

Now come on, let's go make fun of those stupid creationists.

You seriously think there's a genetic predisposition to crime and that it is correlated with certain nationalities? Humans aren't Golden Retrievers and Poodles; they're humans.
post #532 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Humans are the only animal without evolved cognitive and behavioral differences based on geography, gender and social structure. To believe otherwise is racist and sexist.

Now come on, let's go make fun of those stupid creationists.


To be a true multiculturalist, you must celebrate diversity with the implicit assumption that all races, creeds, colors, and religions are just WASPs who happen to look different.

To assume otherwise is, of course, racist and xenophobic.
post #533 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

You seriously think there's a genetic predisposition to crime and that it is correlated with certain nationalities? Humans aren't Golden Retrievers and Poodles; they're humans.

Of course not, Jesus protects humans from evolution.
post #534 of 1314
To take your question more seriously - all it would take is a slight disposition towards more testosterone to make a nationality more inclined to commit crime. One society's crime is another society's necessary level of aggression
post #535 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Humans are the only animal without evolved cognitive and behavioral differences based on geography, gender and social structure. To believe otherwise is racist and sexist.

Now come on, let's go make fun of those stupid creationists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

To take your question more seriously - all it would take is a slight disposition towards more testosterone to make a nationality more inclined to commit crime. One society's crime is another society's necessary level of aggression


If we were to take human genetic particularities & their effects on behavior patterns across regions (taking into account different historical degrees of relative isolation vs. inter-breeding), then we'd have to have a really complex model of populations across time leading to the present. Instead, we rely on four or five fucking colors. Or colors in some combination with continents (with one said continent containing the majority of the world's population, across different shades of the stupid fucking color spectrum). If we were to taxonomize any other species or subspecies--like butterflies--in this way, we'd be rightly accused of being fucking imbeciles who are dazzled by all the pretty colors. But we do this with humans for longstanding historical reasons. And these very same historical reasons partly/largely explain the cultural deformations in how certain populations live in ways that complicate any straightforward genetic answer.

"Nationality" opens up another problem entirely--sometimes partly useful if national boundaries align in some way with genetic/reproductive subgroups, at other times entirely unhelpful since they're political fictions (albeit political fictions with a lot of force).

"Stop being a racist" is shorthand for "Stop reducing complex questions of behavior to any facile claim to genetic difference, because that facile claim takes part in historical patterns of imagining and thinking that has had some incredibly shitty consequences." Maybe that shorthand is used liberally (hurr hurr). Sorry if that hurts your delicate feelings.
post #536 of 1314
"If we were to taxonomize any other species or subspecies--like butterflies--in this way [by geographic location, color, various physical features]"

Aren't geographic isolation and morphological differences exactly how subspecies are usually defined -- you know, this tiger from A is usually a little bigger than that tiger from S, and he has more stripes or whatever. With people that's a bit harder because there's so many of us and we've advanced to the point that the historic geographic barriers are gone, and today there's more of a gradient than a sharp line. But in the past there was undoubtedly significant isolation between the major populations, genetic differentiation, and there's still a huge legacy of that today.

Or, to abstract and simplify it a little, just because there are brown people in between doesn't mean black and white people aren't still distinct from each other.
post #537 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post


If we were to take human genetic particularities & their effects on behavior patterns across regions (taking into account different historical degrees of relative isolation vs. inter-breeding), then we'd have to have a really complex model of populations across time leading to the present. Instead, we rely on four or five fucking colors. Or colors in some combination with continents (with one said continent containing the majority of the world's population, across different shades of the stupid fucking color spectrum). If we were to taxonomize any other species or subspecies--like butterflies--in this way, we'd be rightly accused of being fucking imbeciles who are dazzled by all the pretty colors. But we do this with humans for longstanding historical reasons. And these very same historical reasons partly/largely explain the cultural deformations in how certain populations live in ways that complicate any straightforward genetic answer.

"Nationality" opens up another problem entirely--sometimes partly useful if national boundaries align in some way with genetic/reproductive subgroups, at other times entirely unhelpful since they're political fictions (albeit political fictions with a lot of force).

"Stop being a racist" is shorthand for "Stop reducing complex questions of behavior to any facile claim to genetic difference, because that facile claim takes part in historical patterns of imagining and thinking that has had some incredibly shitty consequences." Maybe that shorthand is used liberally (hurr hurr). Sorry if that hurts your delicate feelings.

Sounds like you have been in quiet agreement with me every time I've said here I refuse to believe that big, brawny, pale, blue-eyed me can in any rational fashion be considered in the same "race" as a population of short, wiry, black goat haired, swarthy population.

cheers.gif
post #538 of 1314
Quote:
Originally Posted by erictheobscure View Post

"Stop reducing complex questions of behavior to any facile claim to genetic difference..."

Pretty much sums it up. Vague, sweeping generalizations based on some abstraction or even misunderstanding of genetics makes for nice sentences but mostly vacuous arguments.
post #539 of 1314
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

Pretty much sums it up. Vague, sweeping generalizations based on some abstraction or even misunderstanding of genetics makes for nice sentences but mostly vacuous arguments.

At some point though don't we need generalizations to get our arms around complex topics? I think sometimes the thought that everything is complicated or nuanced is a cop out and distracts from the actual issue by trying to atomize it more and more until one forgets about the entirety and focuses on microscopic constituent parts forgetting it is the whole that has impact out in the world in general. This is not a dismissal of complexity and nuance but rather a dismissal that generalizations don't have their place and basically are needed in opinion formation, policy construction, etc. The "complexity and nuance" discussion must be slave to the formation of more accurate and useful generalizations.
post #540 of 1314
Generalisation within a scientific framework is absolutely necessary. That's how we get, say, Newtonian physics despite knowing that the reality is far more complicated. You can write and solve the equations to get to the moon on a napkin.

What I'm referring to is a heuristic approach that is completely reductive and unable to be substantiated.

So, while it's perhaps very valid to infer significant generic differences (which isn't even a quantified statement at this point and even 5% isn't enough to distance from chimpanzees), there is a massive leap in taking that difference to explain away more than superficial or simplistic attributes. This is not to say they don't exist, but that a lot more work needs to and should be done.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Terrorist Bombing and Other Acts of Inhumanity Thread