Be careful, Louis! I've gotten in trouble for such dangerous thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Printable View
Be careful, Louis! I've gotten in trouble for such dangerous thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
When did Louis become a mod!?
They made me moderator two weeks ago. I posted some drunk stuff in the Frontroom, and they offered me the choice of being instagibbed or 'volunteering' for mod services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
If it's a pun for 'mod', the English subculture commonly mistaken for precursors of the skinheads, I wish I could say: a long time ago. Mods, like Megas did above, are mistaken for white supremacists. Not so, not at all:
Sartre-reading, existentialist beatniks with Italianate style. Throw in an uncompromising acceptance of the consequences of Darwin and it's me alright.Quote:
Sociologist Simon Frith asserts that the mod subculture had its roots in the 1950s beatnik coffee bar culture, which catered to art school students in the radical bohemian scene in London.[11] Steve Sparks, who claims to be one of the original mods, agrees that before mod became commercialized, it was essentially an extension of the beatnik culture: "It comes from ‘modernist’, it was to do with modern jazz and to do with Sartre" and existentialism.
Frith notes that although coffee bars were originally aimed at middle-class art school students, they began to facilitate an intermixing of youths from different backgrounds and classes.[12] At these venues, which Frith calls the "first sign of the youth movement", youths would meet collectors of R&B and blues records, who introduced them to new types of African-American music, which the teens were attracted to for its rawness and authenticity. They also watched French and Italian art films and read Italian magazines to look for style ideas.
When the check cleared at Tosa's bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
I still think Tosa did it to put an end to the Louis/Strike confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaka_Khan
Because we are not different species or breeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yup, need to be careful when talking about breed, species or race. These are all flexible words with built-in imprecision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Why be careful same species different race. We instantly recognise a member of the same species, and we instantly see it when someone has a different genetic make-up. We can reproduce we are all homo-sapiens, but of different flavours.
I've heard that the differences between the different dog breeds are smaller than the differences between humans (at 06:32 in this very recent vid for your Norwegian reference; though I am not able to verify this. Their chimp-human comparison appears to be outdated). Also dogs might have been bred purely for looks, which perhaps could make small genetic differences more obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Species yes, but race and breed are comparable in some ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yeah, no kiddin'. Either the law will lock you up, or my homies will knife you up. Learn some respect, or else go back to...Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
... *sigh* It's beautiful outside tonight. Clear skies. You can see the stars.
What's so wrong with what he says, don't you as a native have some features that are unique for people of Indian ancestry. And never bring a knive to a gunfight, he got them.
By comparing us to dogs, he implies our inherent differences go beyond mere physical characteristics.
He put himself a step closer to 'ole Hitla, and... nothin more needs to be said.
The big difference is that the Delagoth didn't breed us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Or for those who aren't getting the reference, we never had big doglike masters who bred us into different traits. Do anybody here know a population bred for their intelligence? Or strength? Or temper and aggresion levels? Admittably, there's is possible exception with the French, who obviously are bred for cultural arrogance... :book:
For why the subject is sensitive is because can and have been used to claim a permanent superiourity, either by class or by race and that while the genetical studies seems to indicate larger in-group variations than group to group variations.
They do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
No he didn't, he used dogs as an example. Could also use horsesQuote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
Before you guys lock me up in a concentration camp or start waving swastika flags about, let me take out my anger on a punching bag, then study for the rest of the night as I should be doin.
i want to see proof first. i doubt a wolf can still mate with a chihuahua... and i think it would make A class entertainment :PQuote:
Originally Posted by drone
Nah we are sending you to logic class, wouldn't Luigi compare himself to a dog if humanity is a single species with multiple races?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
Wolves can certainly mate with bigger kind of dogs like Huskies and German Sheperds. I've seen the results of such matings (looked quite awesome). Mating a Chihuahua might be harder, if only due to the size differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
and why is it wrong to say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah
being different does not imply being of greater worth.
"Hitla" has raised his unwelcome head in a thread that to date, has been an exemplar of how to discuss controversial subjects.
Let's continue the high standards and try not to tempt ourselves under any bridges.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Sure we had a big master who bred different traits into us: evolutionary impulse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
By what mechanism are humans excempt from evolutionary impulse?
Or, if we are not, by what mechanism do the exceedingly varied environments and other pressures to which humans are exposed fail to have an evolutionary effect?
Humans are the most geographically spread of all mammals. Humans live in more varied circumstances than any other animal.
Stephen Jay Goud declared the end of evolution: culture has taken over. Instead of humans in colder climates growing fur and bodyfat, they sowed clothes.
I disagree. I think that evolutionary impulses on humans are stronger than on other animals, not weaker. Human evolutionary changes drastically accelerated the past tens of thousands of years, instead of slowing down.
Humans, too, have been domesticated. The herd of cows differs as much from aurochs as the agricultural man differs from his foraging ancestor. In fact, apart from the usual floppy ears (we need pointy ears because we communicate aurally), we bear many traits of domestication. (But not all groups do equally, the San, for example, are notably unaffected by traits of domestication)
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
The excesses of Social Darwinsim do not discredit evolutionary thinking itself. The excesses of racial superiority ideologies do not discredit the application of evolutionary thought on humans.
Strike and Lemur pointed out the important considerations that race is a social construct, and that species, breed and race are imprecise concepts, respectively.
Short of that, let's have no illusions about what is being studied and discovered this past decade by, for example, the epidemologist or doctor. I think the gap between scientific progress and social wishful thinking will prove ever more untenable in the coming decades.
Megas, your unease is understandable, giving the history of extreme racist aggression towards Native Americans.
Not all genetics is governed by racial superiority ideology, however.
As if on cue, today's NYT runs a fine article:
Quote:
Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA
SUPAI, Ariz. — Seven years ago, the Havasupai Indians, who live amid the turquoise waterfalls and red cliffs miles deep in the Grand Canyon, issued a “banishment order” to keep Arizona State University employees from setting foot on their reservation — an ancient punishment for what they regarded as a genetic-era betrayal.
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Members of the Havasupai Indian tribe live in the deepest part of the Grand Canyon. More Photos »
Members of the tiny, isolated tribe had given DNA samples to university researchers starting in 1990, in the hope that they might provide genetic clues to the tribe’s devastating rate of diabetes. But they learned that their blood samples had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.
The geneticist responsible for the research has said that she had obtained permission for wider-ranging genetic studies.
Acknowledging a desire to “remedy the wrong that was done,” the university’s Board of Regents on Tuesday agreed to pay $700,000 to 41 of the tribe’s members, return the blood samples and provide other forms of assistance to the impoverished Havasupai — a settlement that legal experts said was significant because it implied that the rights of research subjects can be violated when they are not fully informed about how their DNA might be used.
The case raised the question of whether scientists had taken advantage of a vulnerable population, and it created an image problem for a university eager to cast itself as a center for American Indian studies.
But genetics experts and civil rights advocates say it may also fuel a growing debate over researchers’ responsibility to communicate the range of personal information that can be gleaned from DNA at a time when it is being collected on an ever-greater scale for research and routine medical care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us...e&ref=homepage
I'm glad to see Gould being cited, and getting his due, finally. When I was first reading and thinking about anthropology, Ashley Montigue and Margaret Mead were all the rage; I "got" their points, I thought, but I also thought they didn't think broadly enough - didn't fit their views on the human animal into their geo-socio-politico contexts enough, or consider our penchant for broad mobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis
Should've put it in the first post, but intelligence and social skills are usually desirable traits in all cultures, so they shouldn't have that much differenting values compared to other evolutionary differences. Add that more cultural factors like upbringing, food, or a even language (a more general note, it's an observation based on isolated deaf people) have profound influence the development of the mind. Thus in that matter it's hard to directly give genetical conclutions, since western people have gotten about 20 IQ points smarter since the first tests a hundred years ago. That's hardly genetical. When group genetics clearly matter is to give an alternate standard treatment for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Never claimed that humans haven't evolved at all. The implication on why Europeans can on average handle alchohol better than Native Americans and South East Asians is a personal favorite for example, even if I don't know it it's true.
Because humans aren't genetically different enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If the genetic difference had been bigger than what it is, then I would've accepted it. But when two nigerians can have greater genetic difference than a nigerian and a japanese, I don't.
It's also worth pointing out that our species (homo sapien sapien) was down to as few as 2,000 people just 150,000 years ago. We were pretty close to going the way of the dodo and the Tasmanian tiger. A hundred and fifty centuries is not a lot of time for speciation, so it's no wonder that Inuit can cross-breed with pygmy, Nigerian with Briton. We haven't had much time to diverge, and now, with global travel, there's far too much gene-mixing going on for meaningful population divergence.
Nah, where evolution will get kicked in the tender parts is when the very rich are able to buy "improved" characteristics for their offspring. That's when things will get interesting.
2000 seems to be a rather controversial figure, and it's the first time I've heard it so low. 30.000 is the most commonly cited number for that event.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Whatever you say, evolution had enought time and material to provide the the visual differences that we see today; so who knows what else it might have brought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur