The question is, is that due to the “race” itself or the common behavior for people who are similar to group together, forming a culture to emerge in that grouping, which culture predisposes members to various behaviors that correlate to those traits?
Bluntly put: are purple people eaters low scoring on the IQ tests because they are purple people eaters, or because purple people eaters tend to live together in ghettos which removes certain opportunities for intellectual stimulation and hence lower IQ?
Think about what you just wrote. I pointed out that “race” isn’t even an actual classifier and provided citations. No matter how one tries to define race at the genetic level there are always exceptions. And that is because “race” amounts to little more than a genetic suntan or lack of one.
Now if you’d like to generalize you can do that about many things. And there are many social, economic and cultural factors that come into play. A darker skin pigment doesn’t make one exceptionally talented at basketball or more prone to criminal activity, that is more the result of cultures that place little value on intelligence and higher values on physical aggressiveness. But it’s hardly about “race” because race doesn’t really exist.
Or more importantly, embracing cultural values that give higher degrees of social recognition to those who have been incarcerated than those who have graduated from college.
No, it means I prefer to live as comfortable a life as my means can reasonably provide. It also means I know meth happens in the trailer park like crack happens in the ghetto and both attract people I don’t wish to be socially acquainted with.
I was under the impression a document called the U.S. Constitution afforded me the right to be racist if I so choose… am I mistaken?
since when… does anyone have to like anyone else? When did that become a law? If I don’t like someone because of their skin or sexual orientation, then its my god given right to hate them…
that doesn’t mean I have the right to assault them in anyway, but the 1st amendment does give me the right to say whatever I want…
I can’t believe all of these celebrities saying how they feel, and then going on the air and apologizing… Imus for example… fuck that… obviously that man is more worried about ratings and sponsors than the freedom of speech he so readily clings to as a broadcast journalist…
if not then I believe the Declaration of Independence is sexist… because it says “All Men” and not “All persons”
and Sotomayor needs to be fired for her comments about how she as a Latina has more world experience and better decision making skills than a white man…
" Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
On Wednesday afternoon, Gingrich wrote on Twitter: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman’ new racism is no better than old racism.White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw.”
as Southpark said… just because you tolerate someone doesn’t mean you have to like them…
I don’t think anyone is trying to make it illegal. Basically it’s just a bunch of people who define themselves by race (racists) getting upset because other people’s phrases have racist origins because in the past others defined everyone by race.
Oh, bullshit. That’s not racist. THIS is racist: I bet I know the color of the guy who wrote that article.
ETA: LMMFAO!! He looks like Smart Brother.
ETA2: Holy fuckamolie. DoS is even more fucked up now than I remember. I could only read a couple of pages of that bullshit without vomiting peace signs and afrocentrist garbage.
ETA3: “Overseas, we are also taking steps
to employ a more diverse Locally Employed
workforce by actively recruiting
members of minority clans, tribes and
groups in far-flung places such as Kathmandu,
and by beginning an intern
program for Romani in Budapest, to
name just two examples.”
:lol: they have a DoS intern program for gypsies. Stop the planet, I want off.
Reading through most of these posts (couldn’t make it through all) is absolute proof that some of us have far too much time on our hands. Regardless, the phrase “Hold down the fort” can essentially apply to countless past conflicts worldwide dating back thousands of years, so why this dipshit believes that the noble American Indian is otherwise so special is far beyond me.
“Hold down the fort” is a very vague reference and even attempting to connect it directly with the Native American/US Military engagements is dubious at best.
No, its not really ridiculous, not at all. Its an extremely effective mechanism from the psyops arsenal of the now fully “mainstreamed” marxist/leninists who control this nations childrens minds via their absolute lockdown of the American public school system, and the pop culture…Its exactly how they’ve taken homosexual deviancy and mainstreamed it, by marginalizing the vast majority that opposes it!
The ones who are adopted into families of another race score equally poorly on IQ tests.
And the IQ tests are not showing a cultural bias because foreigners not of this culture often score higher than people raised here, if they are from the right racial group.
As for the ghetto, do the people make the ghetto or does the ghetto make the people? I lived in a bad area of a big city for 4 years, and I can tell you it is the former, not the latter. It’s a ghetto due to the behavior of the people who live there. You don’t find many neighborhoods wrecked by Jewish physicists writing graffiti and burning down buildings.
Yep, there is only racism there if one chooses to find it.
Take the phrase “That’s my boy” and if you want to see racism, there it is. And like so much else, if you aren’t a racist, it isn’t there.
If a person chooses to be a professional victim, they can find offenses anywhere and everywhere they look. If I wanted to, I could be offended by 99% of the things I see every day.
OK, let’s see how race/ethnicity works as a predictor.
Do you think there will be more Jewish or Arab winners of Nobel prizes next year?
Do you think there will be more Asian or black winners of Nobel prizes next year?
See, race is a decent predictor of outcomes.
How about this one: Do you think there will be murders committed this weekend in Chicago by black people or by asian people?
Race predicts that one accurately too.
And I do not buy your BS that race is just sun tan. There are many physical characteristics and behaviors which are identifiable by race. One is cranial capacity. Guess which race has the largest cranial capacity? Guess which race has the lowest? Now correlate that to IQ test scores. You can deny it, but that does not change the fact.
What we really need is more affirmative action. I want affirmative action to put Asian women in the NBA. And I want affirmative action to make all cardiac surgeons black to make up for the years when there weren’t any. And I want affirmative action to make people take chihuahuas duck hunting instead of labradors. See where this goes? Let people find their place based on ability. But ability and intelligence are inherited. That means its in the genes. Right there with their race.
Just to be clear, I do not buy the BS that race does not exist.
though I may disagree with what you say, I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it…
on a side note… simply because you dislike something or may be religiously opposed to something, does not equate it to deviancy…
de·vi·ant (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
homosexuality is a socially accepted norm at this stage in the game (And has been since the time of Alexander the Great, if not before) … so it cannot be considered “deviancy”
if you don’t like it… don’t do it… its that simple… no one is asking you to imbibe a pubicle sack or be a power bottom…
I think this all falls under that rule we all learned in elementary school… “mind your own business”
there is no difference in your trying to force your beliefs on homosexuals, and the views of those who say we shouldn’t be allowed to own guns… everyone just needs to mind their own affairs and stop meddling in those of others…
It has not been a social norm in the past at all in our society. And certainly not since Alexander the Great in general. Now, there were cultures [as an example, certain periods in ancient Greece] where it, or at least certain forms of it, would have been considered acceptable, but in society as a whole that is certainly not the case. If it were, we would not be having “coming out of the closet” events and it would not be the big cultural issue it is today. For right or wrong, it is still not a socially accepted norm in society, though it is inching closer to that status.
Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece can be thought of as the first “societies” or centralized civilizations, if you care to argue you that feel free to open an Anthropology book
The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as Western societies have done for the past century. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.
“Virtue” (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and “cult of virility” shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free.
homosexuality was not condemned until “Western” society… and even then it was “condemned”… it just simply fell off the radar until its resurgence into mainstream society in the late 1960’s
that is so wrong. There were lots of centralized (whatever that means) civilizations before the Greeks or Romans (and Greeks preceded the Romans as a civilization fwiw).
So? This does nothing to prove that homosexuality was a societal norm previously.
Did you read what I wrote? I freely said that in SOME societies in the past, and I specifically mentioned “ancient Greece” during certain periods as one of them, it was more more of an acceptable practice. Even then, as your wikipedia quotes acknowledge, it was not black and white as an acceptable behavior. It was only socially acceptable for the penetrator. So that is not a blanket acceptance. You had to go to the more unacceptable members of society to practice it.
So, what is your point again with this post of yours? It does absolutely NOTHING to prove your claim of “homosexuality is a socially accepted norm at this stage in the game (And has been since the time of Alexander the Great, if not before)”
