-->
@PGA2.0
Science is not a person or persons. Thus it is not racist.
I agree. It’s not racist to say blue eyes are more common with white people and are a result of evolution. Humans are no exception to evolution.
Darwin images
Posts
Total:
71
-->
@ronjs
Actually, I think the cancel culture is ridiculous, although I don't care about statues,
I agree wholeheartedly about the cancel-culture. I take exception about statues. They tell a story of our past, whether good or bad and are a reminder. While I do not think some of these people memorialized by statues should be idolized we should not forget that past. Tearing down statues is something you find in totalitarian societies. Whatever does not meet the ideology of the elite who control the masses is eliminated in such authoritarian and big-government countries. Your society, aided by the mainstream media, is sending a message that anything goes, as long as it meets their particular agenda.
-->
@ILikePie5
If science believes what Darwin believed about' favoured races' then ,yes, science is racist.If science says black people aren’t as evolved genetically as white people, is that racist?
Where is the proof? Because some people have not been as educated or indoctrinated in some cases, does that mean they are less human than others?
-->
@ILikePie5
Science is not a person or persons. Thus it is not racist.I agree. It’s not racist to say blue eyes are more common with white people and are a result of evolution. Humans are no exception to evolution.
So are you of the opinion that this blue-eyedness makes them less human? And what kind of evolution are you speaking of, micro or macro of which I mean a change from one kind to another (macro) or adaption of/in the kind (micro)?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
but to your topic, is it racism if Darwin was basing what he thought on the science and things they knew at the time? Just because they were wrong and the science then is very poor compared to what we know now doesn't mean it's racism.something else to consider the word racism has really lost any meaning and effect because of how it's easily used and misused, but such is human language.
What is your definition? Here is a dictionary definition. In which sense are you using the term?
Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
-->
@PGA2.0
again, it's just a meaningless word now.
but if Darwin came to conclusions via the science available to him at the time, I don't see any of those applying.
-->
@PGA2.0
Where is the proof? Because some people have not been as educated or indoctrinated in some cases, does that mean they are less human than others?
I never said that. That’s a strawman fallacy. I’m just saying science states that some humans are less evolved than some for the better or for the worse. That’s not racist by any means.
-->
@PGA2.0
So are you of the opinion that this blue-eyedness makes them less human? And what kind of evolution are you speaking of, micro or macro of which I mean a change from one kind to another (macro) or adaption of/in the kind (micro)?
No. It was an example that it’s not far fetched and not racist to say skin color is a part of evolution. Being more evolved doesn’t mean you’re superior or inferior. It can but doesn’t have to.
-->
@ronjs
Never said that science or scientists believe Darwin to be racist and that would be an appeal to authority, but his various writings speak for themselves.Nature is not racist, it does not discriminate who or what it kills and it is not always the strongest that survives. Racism is a human concept since there is no biological basis for race, we are all humans with the same blood the same DNA structure and only really minor differences in outward appearance.
Stephen may have read it but here is the original edition and what it says:
ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
By Charles Darwin, M.A.,
Fellow Of The Royal, Geological, Linnaean, Etc., Societies;
Author Of 'Journal Of Researches During H.M.S. Beagle's Voyage Round The World.'
From the First Edition
OR THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
By Charles Darwin, M.A.,
Fellow Of The Royal, Geological, Linnaean, Etc., Societies;
Author Of 'Journal Of Researches During H.M.S. Beagle's Voyage Round The World.'
From the First Edition
***
Darwin teaches there are favoured races. He coined the term "Natural Selection" that he believes determines and demonstrates which races are favoured, the natural selection being whatever survives or is fittest is determined to be stronger or favoured by evolution. With Natural Selection, he personifies nature continually in his descriptions, as if nature "selects" anything. What he means is what by chance "survives" survives. There is no "selecting" here. Sometimes those in an isolated harsher environment over time develop an immunity to some element that others less conditioned would not survive from. Perhaps their skin darkens to the sun through climatization and the trait is passed from generation to generation, protecting the individual better than those who are new to the environment. Thus, he believes some humans are not as evolved as others. His principle of macro-evolution (change from kind to kind) is not something proven but supposed by the principle of micro-evolution (adaption within the kind) which is demonstrable. The weaker are considered lesser or inferior which can lead to an elitist position that history shows results in discrimination against the "weaker" or less evolved. This discrimination led to social Darwinism as practiced by Hitler and others who took the principle into their own hands and tried to speed it up. Examples of discrimination against others cite the South African policy of Apartied based on some races as being more favourable than others. The caste system in India recognizes a hierarchy in place. Many societies can be shown to support a "we" versus "them" mentality, especially when cultures emerge such as with colocalization and conquests.
Believing that some "races" are not as developed or evolved creates an elitist mentality. Instead of viewing all human beings as equal we now get a hierarchy or superiority by those who are considered the stronger, who then exploit the "weaker" or less fortunate.
Darwin (ch. 4): "Natural Selection: its power compared with man's selection, its power on characters of trifling importance, its power at all ages and on both sexes...and unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing...Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions of life...natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life."
The personification is wide-spread.
***
Darwin takes a process that intelligent human beings manipulate, crossbreeding of domestic stock, which he calls "domestication" or "domestic production" to show that change or variation in a kind of animal or plant can produce a change of a kind over time. That is his leap of faith.
Darwin (ch. 4): "We may conclude, from what we have seen of the intimate and complex manner in which the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the change of climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others. If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this also would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants.
New forms? Do they stop being human beings and become other kinds of beings? Are there new kinds of beings that resemble us in some ways as human beings here on earth? Or do we just witness adaption taking place within a kind - human beings adapting to their environment?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
again, it's just a meaningless word now.but if Darwin came to conclusions via the science available to him at the time, I don't see any of those applying.
If you don't see someone as being as evolved as you are you tend to discriminate against them in your thinking (at least, perhaps even in your actions) of yourself as superior, not equal.
-->
@ILikePie5
Where is the proof? Because some people have not been as educated or indoctrinated in some cases, does that mean they are less human than others?I never said that. That’s a strawman fallacy. I’m just saying science states that some humans are less evolved than some for the better or for the worse. That’s not racist by any means.
No, you did not say they are less human. But you are saying "science says." I'm asking if such thinking can produce the idea that less evolved means less human. I will focus on what you said (underlined) as a platform for other actions that may come from those core beliefs. What do you think these scientists mean by less evolved? "Less" as a term of diminished human value? Would you say that has been the way many have interpreted it (social Darwinism)? Or less in a sense of diminished ability to cope? Does less mean inferior? Because some people are able to adapt to the sun better than others does than make them lesser human beings? Some imply this lack of evolutionary adaption does make others lesser beings just because they are lacking something.
-->
@ILikePie5
So are you of the opinion that this blue-eyedness makes them less human? And what kind of evolution are you speaking of, micro or macro of which I mean a change from one kind to another (macro) or adaption of/in the kind (micro)?No. It was an example that it’s not far fetched and not racist to say skin color is a part of evolution. Being more evolved doesn’t mean you’re superior or inferior. It can but doesn’t have to.
Perhaps we can in part agree here! I agree that "ability" should not equate with human worth. the two are separate but too often treated equally. Where I disagree is that it is not far-fetching. I believe lesser or inferior beings (since they don't survive or adapt as well) is a concept indoctrinated into people by the teaching of Darwinism.
-->
@PGA2.0
No, you did not say they are less human. But you are saying "science says." I'm asking if such thinking can produce the idea that less evolved means less human. I will focus on what you said (underlined) as a platform for other actions that may come from those core beliefs. What do you think these scientists mean by less evolved? "Less" as a term of diminished human value? Would you say that has been the way many have interpreted it (social Darwinism)? Or less in a sense of diminished ability to cope? Does less mean inferior? Because some people are able to adapt to the sun better than others does than make them lesser human beings? Some imply this lack of evolutionary adaption does make others lesser beings just because they are lacking something.
I never equated less evolved to less human. The OP stated Darwin was a racist. Sure I agree. A lot of people during his time were. Then I asked him “is science racist.” And he said if you believe what Darwin believes about “favored races” then yes. Then I ask a hypothetical and he calls it racist because it’s untrue. Social Darwinism (White Man’s Burden) is racist and no one here supports it to my knowledge. The problem here is the idea that some people are less evolved and therefore inferior, which can be true in a species as identified by Charles Darwin among other species compared to certain species where evolution doesn’t deem inferiority. It depends on the quality/trait at hand. If I believe both things to be true, it doesn’t make me racist is the point I’m trying to make.
-->
@ILikePie5
It depends on the quality/trait at hand. If I believe both things to be true, it doesn’t make me racist is the point I’m trying to make.
Nevertheless, you are a racist:
By your own admission.....Post #26
Also, by your continuous skirting around racists remarks and making conditions to alluding to racist remarks by frequently using the word "if".
Racist = ignorance and arrogance.
-->
@wllws9
Nevertheless, you are a racist:By your own admission.....Post #26
I think you need help discerning what sarcasm is.
Also, by your continuous skirting around racists remarks and making conditions to alluding to racist remarks by frequently using the word "if".Racist = ignorance and arrogance.
Yup science is definitely racist. You’re the real racist.
Racism = ignorance and arrogance
-->
@David
@Barney
The dude y’all banned for alting is back..
-->
@ILikePie5
Thanks. He's gone
-->
@PGA2.0
if you are making a determination by observation, logic, science I don't see how it's racist, again at that time period they obviously didn't know as much as we do now, afaik they were attempting to use science and logic to compare and contrast, discover, whatever, hardly racist. Unless you can show otherwise I'm not convinced but feel free to change my mind, I certainly would never pretend I know more than I do. Well, not this time anyway :)
Nevertheless, you are a racist:By your own admission.....Post #26
I think you need help discerning what sarcasm is.
Not really. He's Willows and a virulent racist himself.
Racism = ignorance and arrogance
True. Which is why you've been banned more than 30 times loser.
-->
@ethang5
Not really. He's Willows and a virulent racist himself.
Never heard of him lol
-->
@wlsw9
Racism is a natural product of species differentiation.
In Black and White terms, Black is just as racist as White.
It's just that White bashing is currently the trendy option.
And Darwin just did what he thought was right at the time...And to make a song and dance about it now, is futile.
-->
@ILikePie5
you never heard of Willow? lucky bastage haha
-->
@ILikePie5
Yup science is definitely racist. You’re the real racist.
Doesn't make any sense, does it?
If I am a racist, give a reason as to why that would be.
-->
@wlws9
Your racist posts you unwashed idiot.
-->
@PGA2.0
If you don't see someone as being as evolved as you are you tend to discriminate against them in your thinking (at least, perhaps even in your actions) of yourself as superior, not equal.
we are not equal, someone with a physical handicap is not equal to someone without in certain ways, someone with legs IS superior at running compared to someone without. Point being they were making these assumptions based on flawed/wrong science. Human are superior to monkeys but not in every way, but more ways than not based on our knowledge and understanding, perhaps we'll learn that we are wrong someday. but based on what we know and science humans are more evolved and superior.
still doesn't prove racism imo
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If you don't see someone as being as evolved as you are you tend to discriminate against them in your thinking (at least, perhaps even in your actions) of yourself as superior, not equal.we are not equal, someone with a physical handicap is not equal to someone without in certain ways, someone with legs IS superior at running compared to someone without.
I think you are confusing two different subjects for we are not arguing about the same thing. Let me explain further. Equal in the sense of valuable, not equal in the sense of physical ability. Discrimination describes an injustice. You are speaking of the physical or quantitative (that which can be measured through the five senses). I am speaking of the qualitative or abstract/intangible/non-physical.
IOW's, if we are not treated equally under the law it is not just.
Point being they were making these assumptions based on flawed/wrong science. Human are superior to monkeys but not in every way, but more ways than not based on our knowledge and understanding, perhaps we'll learn that we are wrong someday. but based on what we know and science humans are more evolved and superior.still doesn't prove racism imo
Are some humans to be treated as superior because they have a higher IQ than others? If so, as soon as you met someone with a higher IQ should not that person determine what to do with you and whether you live or die? If I can run faster than you should I have the right to kill you because you are deficient in that area? Once you start making distinctions based on one person having a better physical ability than another as to whether they live or die you are being unjust and you cannot yourself live by such standards because all it takes is someone coming along who can demonstrate you are not up to their standard.
-->
@PGA2.0
You are speaking of the physical or quantitative (that which can be measured through the five senses).
correct because it's my assertion that is what Darwin was doing, hence not racist as some have tried to claim.
Are some humans to be treated as superior because they have a higher IQ than others?
LOL of course they are, they get more scholarships, college aid, better course choices, school choices etc
as soon as you met someone with a higher IQ should not that person determine what to do with you and whether you live or die?
do racists have that authority or power? I'm not sure where this live or die came from, but I said nothing remotely like that.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are speaking of the physical or quantitative (that which can be measured through the five senses).correct because it's my assertion that is what Darwin was doing, hence not racist as some have tried to claim.
Yet his ideology led to social Darwinism, a form of racism. Some thought it was a natural outcome of this ideology. Not only this but did Darwin see the pygmy or some primitive people as human as he was? Not bloody likely. Were they not a step down the ladder? Thus, was it permissible to treat them differently? Apparently so, for slavery did just that.
Are some humans to be treated as superior because they have a higher IQ than others?LOL of course they are, they get more scholarships, college aid, better course choices, school choices etc
Then, on that basis of higher IQ, if these superior humans determine you do not have the right to life, as Hitler and the Nazis (considered their Aryan "race" superior) thought of the Jews and other "inferior" groups within their society, what then? In the 1936 Olympics Hitler wanted to showcase the German people as superior in a physical way. His plan did not go as pictured. His elitist athletes were put to shame by Jesse Owens, one of the races Hitler considered inferior. The Nazis then legislated the Jew and other undesirables out of existence through time as their policies became more and more the norm. Once the villainization of Jews was acceptable, this lead to greater dehumanization and then to the concentration camps.
While I'm all for giving people opportunities if they prove they have a better mental ability and can do things we can't, we should not turn this into a platform to discriminate against those less endowed. There will always be some with greater mental ability than us. If we allow some human beings to be treated unequally we can do the same with others, to the detriment of justice.
as soon as you met someone with a higher IQ should not that person determine what to do with you and whether you live or die?do racists have that authority or power? I'm not sure where this live or die came from, but I said nothing remotely like that.
I'm suggesting the outcome if your follow the thinking through to is consequences because what is happening here is a form of devaluation, perhaps even dehumanization. When you start treating some people as not as valuable as others based on some physical or mental attribute you can devalue their life out of existence as well, such as with abortion. This has been the position taken with slavery, the persecution of the Jews, Apartheid in South Africa, and the caste system of India, and yes, abortion, to name a few.
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm suggesting the outcome if your follow the thinking through to is consequences because what is happening here is a form of devaluation, perhaps even dehumanization. When you start treating some people as not as valuable as others based on some physical or mental attribute you can devalue their life out of existence as well, such as with abortion. This has been the position taken with slavery, the protection of the Jews, Aparthied in South Africa, and the caste system of India, and yes, abortion, to name a few.
of course, we know that now, we've learned, adapted and changed, I'm not challenging any of that, only the claim that Darwin was racist because of his science.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm suggesting the outcome if your follow the thinking through to is consequences because what is happening here is a form of devaluation, perhaps even dehumanization. When you start treating some people as not as valuable as others based on some physical or mental attribute you can devalue their life out of existence as well, such as with abortion. This has been the position taken with slavery, the protection of the Jews, Aparthied in South Africa, and the caste system of India, and yes, abortion, to name a few.of course, we know that now, we've learned, adapted and changed, I'm not challenging any of that, only the claim that Darwin was racist because of his science.
See last post, first comment.