Poll: Do All Races Have a Right to Exist?

[jillian]

My argument is not whether or not he is a racist. Been reading his posts for years. My argument is that I have never seen him initiate hostility with another member on this board, and he at least does usually try to make a well-articulated argument. That would make him a polite, well-educated racist.

That, in and of itself does not negate his arguments. Facts do. That was the only point I was trying to make.

Dunno. Didn't think he was so polite when he called me something like a **** bitch, but ok.

When he raises a point that is deserving of response, he gets them. When he spews racist filth, he deserves to be called racist filth since it's not like "facts" are going to process for him.

 

[Alucard]

I don't know how to make a poll and I'm too lazy to figure it out. But I seek the board's responses.

Thanks!

My answer is, yes, absolutely.

I agree all races have a right to exist...

But I also believe they should be separate.... the mixing of races has never amounted to anything good... Maybe that is why we were created to look so different ...and history has shown its probably best to keep it that way....

 

[jff.law]

Sure they have.

 

[cbi0090]

No race is obsolete.with genetic engineering only the best of human traits should continue to be propagated . one perfect race .,taking the best genetics from all races. with the use of eugenics and race specific bio weapons unnecessary and undesirably Geno pools could be terminated allowing for a environmentally sustainable population , operating under a one world religion and political system , in perfect harmony . advancement of physiological and cognitive improvements could also be realized through the incorporation of genetic engineering and cyborg technology's

Jeez! That could have been right out of Mein Kampf!

 

[manifold]

the mixing of races has never amounted to anything good... Maybe that is why we were created to look so different ...and history has shown its probably best to keep it that way....

I don't think I've ever disagreed with a single post more than this. In fact, it's so blatantly retarded that I can only conclude you meant it as a joke.

 

[frazzledgear]

I don't know how to make a poll and I'm too lazy to figure it out. But I seek the board's responses.

Thanks!

My answer is, yes, absolutely.

I don't even understand the basis for this question. Who do you even know who would suggest that people of a certain skin color have no "right" to exist? Regardless of their race, they are all still human beings. So the real question you are asking is "Does a human being have a "right" to exist? I'd like to know why ANYONE would anyone the first question differently if their answer to the second is "yes".

Your question is no less mindboggling to me than if you had asked if redheads have a "right" to exist. Skin color, eye color, hair color -they are just all meaningless physical differences that exist among all human beings. If you are born a human being, you have a right to exist. Period. Regardless of which physical traits you inherited.

 

[The_Hammer]

I agree all races have a right to exist...

But I also believe they should be separate.... the mixing of races has never amounted to anything good... Maybe that is why we were created to look so different ...and history has shown its probably best to keep it that way....

Even if the bible were true and mankind had been created, we all came from the same stock. Adam and Eve. There is no "race" just mankind and the physical differences that have developed as a result of environment.

 

[The_Hammer]

Interestly enough, on the slant this particular argument has taken, I agree with WJ in principle.

I NEVER see anyone argue his claims on merit. Calling someone a "racist piece of shit" and attacking the person rather than views is hardly winning an argument. It isn't even addressing the argument. It's attempting to dismiss a valid topic by hurling the "R" word.

I see the claim of tolerance, subsequently contradicted by a stream of dismissive insults.

If WJ was black/hispanic/other racial minority and advocating the exact same things for their exclusivity, I daresay he would be received in a different light and anyone attacking his views would be labelled "racist." At the very least he would be considered an overzealous advocate for a righteous cause.

I don't agree with most of WJ's views on race, but one I DO agree with is whites are definitely held to a higher, almost if not actually impossible standard.

Why be mad about being held to a higher standard? Would you rather have people expect you to fail, to whine, to blame the white guy for your problems?If for every time I failed I'd rather have someone kick me and tell me to get up, and stretch out a hand to help me keep going instead of someone saying no no, it's okay to stay in the mud, or try and carry me through stuff.

I get pissed when I see white kids acting like gigaboos. Not only because they are emulating a culture that isn't theirs without giving it proper respect (I feel the same way about wapanese and pretty much every other cultural emulator) but because they act like idiots. Do you really want to behave like someone who's most likely going to end up in prison? Do you really want dress in such a way that a billy club is going to crack you over your head? Do you really? The way black culture in the US has developed (and yes it did develop as a result of racism) is sad, but it can be gotten past. I get so mad because people are only reinforcing it. They aren't helping themselves, or minorities get rid of foolish thinking and uncouth behavior.

 

[Gungnir]

Do All Races Have a Right to Exist?

No living thing has the right to exist if it does not struggle for life. Apply this to populations of living things if you want.

No race is obsolete.

one perfect race

You contradict yourself. I believe you mean to reduce the Human Species to one sub-special phenotypical population.

with genetic engineering only the best of human traits should continue to be propagated

The end goal of human striving in that field should be the elimination of dangerously harmful genetic mutations. Had we the competency to do such a thing it would be a miraculous boon to our species. As a living organism however, I would object to the introduction of genes into my offspring which are not found recessive or dominant in myself or my child's mother.

with the use of eugenics

Unless you have some sort of Virus that can transcribe DNA you are dooming yourself to death or sterilization. If you effectively change your DNA you shall no longer be the same person.

...

Unless you consider yourself the perfect specimen.

and race specific bio weapons unnecessary and undesirably Geno pools could be terminated allowing for a environmentally sustainable population , operating under a one world religion and political system , in perfect harmony .

You speak of folly.

advancement of physiological and cognitive improvements could also be realized through the incorporation of genetic engineering

If you change the DNA then you cease to be of the Huiman species

and cyborg technology's

Do you mean like Pacemakers, Hearing Aides, Reading Glasses, and Prosthetics?

Even if the bible were true and mankind had been created, we all came from the same stock. Adam and Eve. There is no "race" just mankind and the physical differences that have developed as a result of environment.

There are two accounts of creation in the Holy Bible. Adam is second in line. See Cain's wife for example. Current research indicates an "ancestral Eve" to my knowledge. I suspect she might have been alive around the time of the Toba Explosion which created a population bottleneck.

Further, those physical differences are inherited and can be classed into statistical averages that are defined as races/sub-species. The smallest unit of like people in a race that can reproduce in an isolated situation without fear of inbreeding are nations.

The way black culture in the US has developed (and yes it did develop as a result of racism) is sad, but it can be gotten past. I get so mad because people are only reinforcing it.

Have you ever read about memes? You might find them interesting if you have not.

Mr. The_Hammer would you believe that I considered Mjolnir as my username?

 

[The_Hammer]

Holy shit Gungnir I have a slight feeling that you may or may not be able to defend an argument legitimately. I have hope.

No living thing has the right to exist if it does not struggle for life. Apply this to populations of living things if you want.

This assumes right is inherent and based on action, which it is not. We only recognize "right" as a metaphysical/philosophical concept because we can think of it as such, it's socially acceptable, and beneficial to the species over all to do so.

You contradict yourself. I believe you mean to reduce the Human Species to one sub-special phenotypical population.

No we aren't sub-special phenotypical population, but we aren't significantly different genotypically for us to really be considered anything but human. Race are simply the variety within the species. No one considers labs, weimareners, grey hounds, daschunds, and bulldogs different races. They are just varieties (and far more varied than we) of dog.

There are two accounts of creation in the Holy Bible. Adam is second in line. See Cain's wife for example. Current research indicates an "ancestral Eve" to my knowledge. I suspect she might have been alive around the time of the Toba Explosion which created a population bottleneck.

I'm going the with canon, nothing apocryphal. The whole bit about cains wife being some random other human (maybe even lilith) is bs when it comes to theology and falls into the realms of apocrypha and fiction (no jokes on the bible now ). Adam and eve were the only two persons mentioned being created. Their offspring married amongst themselves (meanwhile he be became father to sons and daughters blah blah blah) and it has been generally accepted that cain married one of his sisters. The rest as I said falls into the realm of apology. And no combining secular and theological thought on humanity. Please choose one or the other.

Further, those physical differences are inherited and can be classed into statistical averages that are defined as races/sub-species. The smallest unit of like people in a race that can reproduce in an isolated situation without fear of inbreeding are nations.

Sub-species generally can't or would have extreme difficulty interbreeding due to highly complex differences in biology or behavior. There are no homo's (referring to the human genus) extant that exhibit such stark differences that we could classify one another as sub-species.

Have you ever read about memes? You might find them interesting if you have not.

Mr. The_Hammer would you believe that I considered Mjolnir as my username?

Bit off topic but that's kind of cool. My hammer however is not the legendary weapon of the norse thunder god but a hark to the grey knights of warhammer 40k.

 

[Gungnir]

I have hope.

You must be an Obama supporter then.

::drum rimshot::

Okay, commedy might not be my "thing".

This assumes right is inherent and based on action, which it is not. We only recognize "right" as a metaphysical/philosophical concept because we can think of it as such,

I agree and used it accordingly. More specifically you have nothing unless you work to obtain it and even then a stray asteroid might deprive you of that. Such is the fate of living things in a nonliving circus.

Now if the circus tent is alive is a question for super brilliant physicist, philsophers, and men of religion.

it's socially acceptable, and beneficial to the species over all to do so.

I do not object to your statement though I have reservations.

Race are simply the variety within the species.

Agreed; and there is intra racial variation.

No one considers labs, weimareners, grey hounds, daschunds, and bulldogs different races. They are just varieties (and far more varied than we) of dog.

They are called Breeds, specifically Purebreds. Working from my definition of Race and Nation (which you disagreed with and then agreed with??) a Breed is a subnational population. Therefore, if a Purebred mates only within his same Breed, his progeny will be at a great danger from the limited genepool selecting a dangerous mutation (inbreeding).

Nations do not face that problem. Royal families, certain Appalachian Americans, and certain Amish do face that danger however. Good examples are the Hemophilia (bleeding disorder??) that afflicted the Russian Tsar's son; the Austrian chin as seen on commedian Jay Leno, the reported prevalence of genetic disorders in Ultraothrodox Ashkenazi communities, and the Blue People of Appalachia (historical example).

The more radical a dog breed is the more likely it is to suffer from defects and the more dependent it is on Humans for survival. American Staffordshire Terriers (Pitbulls) are robust dogs but they still have a short nose and thin coat; Labs should do better in a world without Humans. The Carolina Dog should do even better than Labs; and they too would be outcompeted by a wolf hybrid.

Caveat; a Husky may fair worse in lower lattitudes than a Pitbull due to specialization.

I'm going the with canon, nothing apocryphal

Genesis: Chapter 1: Verse 27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis: Chapter 2: Verse 3
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Genesis: Chapter 2: Verse 7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breat of life; and man became a living soul

Genesis: Chapter 6: Verse 1 and 2
AND it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them.
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The Sons of God, being the Adimic line (created in Eden), intermarrying with the daughters of men (non-Adimic line created by God in Chapter 1).
All of this is really silly and superfluous because a little while after those passages God bottlenecks the population to a handful of people with the flood.

and it has been generally accepted that cain married one of his sisters.

Well call me contrarian then.

And no combining secular and theological thought on humanity. Please choose one or the other.

Merely ironic trivia.

No we aren't sub-special phenotypical population, but we aren't significantly different genotypically for us to really be considered anything but human.

Sub-species generally can't or would have extreme difficulty interbreeding due to highly complex differences in biology or behavior.

Races are sub-sub-species? Homo sapiens sapiens being the only existant sub-species of the Sapiens species.

[QUOTE="The_Hammer]There are no homo's (referring to the human genus) extant that exhibit such stark differences that we could classify one another as sub-species.[/QUOTE]
If that read "there are no Homo sapiens extant" it would be more direct.

Do you think that we could further classify (in conjunction with the Taxonomic System) populations according to their memetics?
Such as:
(tool using Chimpanzee vs nontool using Chimpanzee) vs Bonobo = Subspecies (or Race) divide
(tool using Chimpanzee vs nontool using Chimpanzee) = Subspecies (or Race) culture divide

Bit off topic but that's kind of cool. My hammer however is not the legendary weapon of the norse thunder god but a hark to the grey knights of warhammer 40k.

Legendary my arse, THOR LIVES AND MJOLNIR SWINGS!!! ...

One of these days I will invest some time into that 40k stuff. How much do the books cost ?

 

[The_Hammer]

They are called Breeds, specifically Purebreds. Working from my definition of Race and Nation (which you disagreed with and then agreed with??) a Breed is a subnational population. Therefore, if a Purebred mates only within his same Breed, his progeny will be at a great danger from the limited genepool selecting a dangerous mutation (inbreeding).

Nations do not face that problem. Royal families, certain Appalachian Americans, and certain Amish do face that danger however. Good examples are the Hemophilia (bleeding disorder??) that afflicted the Russian Tsar's son; the Austrian chin as seen on commedian Jay Leno, the reported prevalence of genetic disorders in Ultraothrodox Ashkenazi communities, and the Blue People of Appalachia (historical example).

The more radical a dog breed is the more likely it is to suffer from defects and the more dependent it is on Humans for survival. American Staffordshire Terriers (Pitbulls) are robust dogs but they still have a short nose and thin coat; Labs should do better in a world without Humans. The Carolina Dog should do even better than Labs; and they too would be outcompeted by a wolf hybrid.


Caveat; a Husky may fair worse in lower lattitudes than a Pitbull due to specialization.

But the variation doesn't mean they can't interbreed (though specialized) and they are all called dogs. Meanwhile humans do have limited amounts of specialization and we are all far more similar, yet you wouldn't call us "breeds" of human would you?

The Sons of God, being the Adimic line (created in Eden), intermarrying with the daughters of men (non-Adimic line created by God in Chapter 1).
All of this is really silly and superfluous because a little while after those passages God bottlenecks the population to a handful of people with the flood.


Well call me contrarian then.

Will not address here. Create another thread possibly? Don't want to derail this one with 100 topics.

Merely ironic trivia.

Don't quite understand, but I generally don't combine secular and theological theory unless I'm directly comparing the two.

Races are sub-sub-species? Homo sapiens sapiens being the only existant sub-species of the Sapiens species.


If that read "there are no Homo sapiens extant" it would be more direct.

Do you think that we could further classify (in conjunction with the Taxonomic System) populations according to their memetics?
Such as:
(tool using Chimpanzee vs nontool using Chimpanzee) vs Bonobo = Subspecies (or Race) divide
(tool using Chimpanzee vs nontool using Chimpanzee) = Subspecies (or Race) culture divide

Why have a sub-sub species? The variation isn't significant enough to make the distinction necessary.

Bonobos and common chimps are already designated as different species within the Pan genus (though personally I'd make Bonobos a sub species of chimp and other chimps simply tribes instead of) Pan troglodytes (common chimp which is further divided into subspecies) and Pan paniscus (bonobo). Tool using chimps (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) are just in a different geographical area than other chimps. Honestly it's annoying how they classify nowadays. The greatest genetic variation from what I understand is between Pan paniscus and the members of the trogldyte group. The troglydyte group behaves far more similarly. They should just organize the troglydyte species into tribes and leave paniscus as a subspecies since they're the only ones who really have any major behavioral differences with the other 10+ sub species of pan.

Legendary my arse, THOR LIVES AND MJOLNIR SWINGS!!! ...

One of these days I will invest some time into that 40k stuff. How much do the books cost ?[/QUOTE]

 

[Gungnir]

But the variation doesn't mean they can't interbreed (though specialized)

I am not a vet. but I believe most dogs and wolves can interbreed. I hold reservation on the more radical breeds (TeeCup Chihuahua with an Irish Wolf Hound). If the breeds were kept amongst themselves without Human intervention their genetic faults shall become apparent (Emergence). If the breed is highly specialized and survives the Emergence they will likely face extreme difficulties in conception.

and they are all called dogs.

Yes, as descended from tamed wolves.

Meanwhile humans do have limited amounts of specialization and we are all far more similar, yet you wouldn't call us "breeds" of human would you?

I have already given examples of such. We are biological nations that have a statistical average of genetic expressions which are capable of intrabreeding without the fear of inbreeding. Nations are lumped together in larger averages of traits which are immediately visually identifiable; Races.

Why have a sub-sub species? The variation isn't significant enough to make the distinction necessary.

I don't care if you want to say sub^18 species. Whatever your definition of the largest amount of genetic variation allowed for two animals to succesfully mate and produce a living and viable, fertile offspring -- well start sub'ing that definition and eventually you will reach yourself.

There is sufficient variation of hereditary traits so that a Formosan couple has no chance of producing a normal child which does not look (fit into the accepted average) Formosan.r

 

[Gunny]

Why be mad about being held to a higher standard? Would you rather have people expect you to fail, to whine, to blame the white guy for your problems?If for every time I failed I'd rather have someone kick me and tell me to get up, and stretch out a hand to help me keep going instead of someone saying no no, it's okay to stay in the mud, or try and carry me through stuff.

I get pissed when I see white kids acting like gigaboos. Not only because they are emulating a culture that isn't theirs without giving it proper respect (I feel the same way about wapanese and pretty much every other cultural emulator) but because they act like idiots. Do you really want to behave like someone who's most likely going to end up in prison? Do you really want dress in such a way that a billy club is going to crack you over your head? Do you really? The way black culture in the US has developed (and yes it did develop as a result of racism) is sad, but it can be gotten past. I get so mad because people are only reinforcing it. They aren't helping themselves, or minorities get rid of foolish thinking and uncouth behavior.

I don't see where your response has anything to do with what I posted. People who demand equality should not turn around and demand a certain group/race meet a higher standard than they do.

It isn't okay for blacks and/or race card throwers to to squeal racism any time a whte mentions someone's race then turn around and think a black comedian is funny making fun of how white guys dance. Let a white comedian parody something blacks stereotypically do and it's wailing an gnashing of teeth time.

The NAACP is a fine, upstanding organization. ANy corresponding white porganization would be called racist. Just the way it is.

It's a double standard. Stupid doesn't know skin color. If you're a dumbass, I'm calling you a dumbass. If you happen to be a black that's a dumbass it doesn't make me a racist to do so.

 

[William Joyce]

Who do you even know who would suggest that people of a certain skin color have no "right" to exist?

The Nazis wanted to clear out the Jews. The Jews want to clear out the Palestinians. The Black Panthers want to clear out the whites. "La Raza" wants Hispanics to take over the U.S.

Are you serious with that question?