-->
@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.
Science is not a person or persons. Thus it is not racist.
Actually, I think the cancel culture is ridiculous, although I don't care about statues,
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?
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.
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.
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?
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nevertheless, you are a racist:By your own admission.....Post #26
I think you need help discerning what sarcasm is.
Racism = ignorance and arrogance
Not really. He's Willows and a virulent racist himself.
Yup science is definitely racist. You’re the real racist.
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.
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
You are speaking of the physical or quantitative (that which can be measured through the five senses).
Are some humans to be treated as superior because they have a higher IQ than others?
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?
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.
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.
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.