Dragging this little gem out of the Rage topic, to continue this discussion until it is probably just me and Bur tossing paragraphs at each other, as per usual.
Rules of this thread:
We are all still friends at the end of the day.
No throwing of Bibles, Quranâs, Tipitakaâs or lab equipment.
To catch up anyone too lazy to read the other thread, it started with some pro-white genocide comments, and I made a comment on all the religious and atheistic implications of white genocide specifically, and the topic grew into a monster, so, to continue:
I do not think this would be true. If everything is simply a mechanical entity with no other force behind it save the same physics that hurl asteroids through space and burn stars, if your intended goal is to keep such entities replicating, you would naturally use strains that have proven traits of high adaptability, though I agree culling any other races generally would come with more cons than pros.
This sounds like you are measuring humans with a different scale than common animals. Pitbulls tend to be more violent, Greyhounds tend to be faster, Pomeranians tend to be more noisy, etc. As noted, they are all dogs, yet they all show physical as well as mental differences within each breed/race/strain. It is impossible for someone to be atheistic, believe in evolution and not believe in racial superiority in one form or another (by this I mean: Whites are superior in X, blacks are superior in Y, etc). Itâs one of the fundamental laws governing evolutionary theory.
Flatline or Daniel always ruin our fun. Eh, jokes aside, good idea for getting a new thread on this Rot. Might want to change the title to reflect other controversial topics, not just this one.
Thereâs an element of luck behind everything in the universe. Call it âThe Hand of God,â or what have you. Doesnât matter. Evolution not a purely mechanical entity as it stands. If it wasnât for luck the Human species as we know it wouldnât be here let alone exist.
Different âracesâ have different genetic traits, some legacies have genes that are resistant or outright immune against the HIV virus (FYI, 20% of the European population have/has this resistance/immunity; they DO have something to contribute to the species as a whole ). Thatâs something highly desirable from a genetic point of view, but in terms of a person, their genetic makeup is not what makes them who they are. Itâs the environment they were raised in and their morals. Thatâs what I was getting at with my last post and Muslim extremism.
From an evolutionary standpoint, dogs have been more specialized to a niche due to artificial breeding practices. I canât speak to the human genome, but we arenât so genetically specialized for an environment. We live practically everywhere on the earth and adapt the environment to our needs rather than the other way around. So it doesnât really apply here.
Genetically speaking, Humans are less diverse than dogs when it comes to physical traits (e.g. speed). We as a species have different body types, but theyâre less specialized than a dogs or a cats is.
So, basically racism is always going to exist in some form regardless of what you do? (straighten it out, I canât make much sense to this - call me an idiot)
True some people are better at things than others, but really, our bodies are practically all built the same irregardless of gender and race: A black guy can be just as good as a white girl at hockey or what have you if the individual practices it enough, but some people have a natural talent for it. It varies between people and animals.
Take Orcas (killer whales) for example: Each pod has their own hunting patterns, some of them purposefully beach themselves to get a seal close to the water line, sometimes that behavior is unique to that pod, other times it isnât.
As rot pointed out, itâs a fundamental law. Not much you can do. Some people are superior to others in some ways (e.g. HIV immunity/resistance), itâs just the way things are, but am I saying blacks are better at basketball than whites are? No. Maybe if the person involved was better built than the other, sure, but not because of the color of their skin, but because they took better care of themselves.
We used to have a whole subforum dedicated to this kind of stuff at one point. I figured these were the most prominent points of discussion in the other thread, so thatâs what I went with.
This depends entirely on your philosophy. If holding to purely atheist/evolutionist theory, there would be no possible other outcome at this point in time than what is happening now. There would be no such thing as choice or luck. Theoretically everything anyone ever does or will do is predictable, just like the movement of the planets or stars, because all âlifeâ is just chemicals reacting to each other, albeit in a very complex way.
I could have used a better example perhaps. Itâs the same general idea for breeds of dogs, or for entirely different species (if you believe we all started out as soup), as it is for races. Certain groups, whether from the smallest scale being a personal family or to the largest scale of being a mouse versus an oak tree, every âlivingâ thing will be specialized in some way or another that sets it apart from everything else. Tying this back to the original topic, it does not make sense to commit mass genocide on the more successful strains of evolution.
Ah okay, what I was saying was that if you are Atheist/Evolutionist, racism is simply a tool for certain mutationâs continued propagation, weeding out weaker strains.
Some Pitbulls are calm, laid back animals, and some Pomeranians arenât prone to barking fits. Sometimes you have to deal with generalizations.
Perhaps itâs time for some background on me now? Personally, Iâm not Atheist, Iâm Christian, and as such I believe people have the ability to make their own choices and that morals hold value, thus putting racism on a list of things never to be done. I do find it interesting thinking about it from the point of view of someone whoâs belief system holds no moral limitations though.
Also, I donât take a positive stance for Evolution or Creationism, and I will argue against either if they bring up a particularly faulty point. I find it extremely unlikely that anyone is going to know exactly what happened in pre-history in this lifetime, that particular topic doesnât hold much value to me.
Little background on me; Iâm agnostic (google it), you already know Iâm an American.
The stance I take on Religion is basically: Iâve never liked it, but I tolerate it. I blame my mother for that, she tried to force her beliefs on me several times over my lifetime and it never ended well.
All science is is a guessing game and theories. With out actually seeing what happens, you cannot say for sure what this or that happened for sure. I believe what the evidence shows me, itâs not rock solid, its never been, but I make an educated guess and form my beliefs of that particular topic around the evidence that is available to me.
While itâs regrettable, sometimes you do need mass genocide for a new species to flourish. The rise of dinosaurs, mammals, and other such critters would have been unlikely if not for the mass extinctions that happened in the ancient past.
Tying this to the topic, while it a genetic bottleneck occurs, it provides a smaller gene pool and better genes to spread to the species that survive the event. I donât condone the mass murder of a certain group of people (be it jews, black, white, or what have you), but its a tool that nature uses quite frequently throughout our past history that the evidence points to.
My philosophical point of view on Evolution vs Creationism is really a mix of the two. Thereâs no evidence (yet) that this happened or that happened. Creationism is too far-fetched for me, and frankly, anything that crazy people spout is to be ignored. Atheismâs too extreme as well, the world is not as black and white as they say.
It happened by pure chance in my honest opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The hand of god may have been behind it for all I know - frankly this is really the stance that creationists should take in this day and age. The evidence points to the Earth being 4 billion years old if not older, and life may have been transplanted or evolved from extremophile bacteria (google it) that existed at the creation stages of the Earth or we came from soup, I donât know.
To my original point, it was all chance. Some atheists make it black and white, itâs not. Mutations by their very nature are unpredictable, it depends on the creature (or person), how damaged the genetic material is (through radiation or degradation), and a whole slew of other factors. Saying that you can predict what path life will take in four generations is like predicting when and where exactly to the letter the next hurricane of the season will form next week (I wanted to come up with a witty example, but I couldnât think of anything funny). Itâs neigh impossible.
The point is that appearance or place of birth have nothing to do with genetic traits. Race is a social construct with absolutely no basis in biology.
If you kill all white people you wipe out the genes for low pigmentation, thatâs all you can really say with certainty.
Race (=appearance) != DNA
Please donât tell me what I believe. As an atheist, I simply hold no belief in any god. Any of my other beliefs or ideas have nothing to do with my atheism.
I believe luck is just a term for happy coincidences, which is subjective and thus not a real thing. Everything is pretty much random, so effectively everything is a coincidence, luck is just when things coincide in your favour.
The absence of a deity does not require a mechanical universe. Quantum theory shows that pretty clearly.
Evolution does not work by weeding out weaker strains. Some genes or species die out because thatâs what happens. Things die. Most of the time it has more to do with circumstance than with actual fitness, or with an evolutionary arms race type situation.
Actually, thatâs what fitness means. Fitness (in evolutionary terms) is simply an organismâs suitability to survive in its environment, so in fact everything is circumstantial.
Fun fact: we are no more or less evolved than chimpanzees. We (humans and chimpanzees) are all just a bunch of apes who stopped having sex with eachother a few million years ago.
Oh, one more, very important point. Leaving everything else aside, there is noooooo reason to say that white people (Europeans) are a âsuccessful raceâ, definitely not in the long term. Our current relative âsuccessâ has been going for a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the existence of the modern human species.
â
Mass extinction isnât genocide, and it doesnât provide anything to make a species âbetterâ. Species just change. If we were living 100 million years ago you wouldnât call us âbetterâ at anything, we would have no chance of survival. Species change because environments change, there is no good or bad, advanced or primitive, there is only alive or dead.
If you kill all white people, maybe you end up killing a gene that wouldâve made everyone immune to some horrible disease. Maybe if you kill all black people you end up doing the same. There really is no objective criteria to predict or estimate what effect killing any particular âraceâ would have on the evolution of the species.
Unless you deny that race is a social construct (which it is), what youâre describing, rot, is basically social Darwinism, which is what neo-Nazis, for example, often subscribe to; so I donât need to explain why itâs wrong, I hope.
also, watch the video idi linked, because it /thread within the first five minutes
btw, what really started this was Ramirezoid saying (jokingly) we should kill all white people because that includes (nearly) all rich powerful people
and sorry if I sound serious, thatâs not the intention
I didnât read everything in this thread and, as of now, as long as everyone remains cordial, Iâll allow it. I may even contribute a bit should I feel a good opening to do so.
That said, if this thread becomes one to â[throw] Bibles, Quranâs, Tipitakaâs or lab equipmentâ around, I will not hesitate to lock this thread down.
Perhaps youâve misunderstood me (Or you are making an aside point) I (myself) agree that there is 0% good reasons to commit genocide of any kind (for personal moral beliefs). The point I was making, is that if there is no moral right or wrong, just being alive or dead as you say, it would be particularly counterproductive to eliminate whites and/or asians, as they are by far the most plentiful versions of the species, which would suggest they are doing something ârightâ as far as evolutionary survival goes. The interesting thing is that racism is probably a very prominent factor in why there are so many whites around today. âYouâre different, we kill you and take your land for usâ, while barbaric and morally abhorrent, seems to be quite a successful survival strategy.
And sorry Bur, I was not meaning to say âAthiests all believe Xâ. Personally I donât know any Atheists who do not have morals, what I was getting at is that without a God, morals have no value, which would put genocide on the same level as walking to the store and buying a piece of fruit; just another thing that happens. Again, I donât know anyone (scratch that, I donât know many people) who would be pro-genocide in any circumstance. Iâm just saying that if it isnât âwrongâ well, what happens?
Actually to change the subject a little, and only if you want to talk about it, what is your personal views on morals? Iâm curious to know.
Iâm totally on a line with most of what bur said. The discussion is also based on assumptions that some of you maybe got wrong. First of all, I think a big problem here could be the misconceiving view on some terms like âraceâ for example. Like bur put it, âraceâ is first of all an artificial, made up term, a sociological construct that has no meaning in the science (biology), except that we use it synonymous with subspecies, for example for domesticated animals like dogs. You may confuse it with species, which in itself isnât even as rock solid as you want. There are many concepts on species (morphological, population genetic, phylogenetic concepts, to name a few), with currently no sufficient and absolute theory.
It would be counterproductive to eliminate anyone, not more or less based on any (socially constructed) ethnicity or skin color, thatâs what bur said. Whites/ and or asians as you have put it, donât do anything more ârightâ than any other species. With this logic, just because they are more in numbers, insects or microorganisms would be the most âsuccessfulâ living entities in this world. In contrast to that, you can deem any species successful that currently lives on this planet.
And to hold racism as a point that there are so many whites today and this seems to you as a âsuccessful survival strategyâ is, pardon me, just laughable.
By linking any shady characteristics to " evolutionary superiority", you are really getting in social darwinism range. By that logic, all people that pushed this idea would have to start with wiping themselves out, because they will have at least one trait thatâs flawed.
Couldnât have put it better myself. We just think we stand on the end of the evolutionary chain, because we are self-aware, can think and have culture, build metropoles all over the world and so on (traits that to some extent also applies to some other animals, albeit not so far and complex like we humans have). In fact, we are not. There is no âperfectâ species, some kind of super organism that someday will evolve. Species simply are vehicles for their genetic material, which gets constantly tested by the environment and must pass the test of time. If it gets approved, they live on and inherit their specific code. If not, they die out. Simple as that.
As far as morals go⌠hm⌠another social construct invented by mankind that seemingly has no counterpart in nature. I say seemingly because also in nature social things like altruism, caring for others and so on can be observed. Still, I think itâs good they are there, if religion provides you with it, thatâs fine, in my opinion, mankind can have moral standards or codes also without the need for religion.
How these moral codexâs look like and after what criteria you build them is another thing. You could argue yourself to death about topics like this, so Iâll leave it at that.
Your genes determine what you look like. Genes = DNA. Socially itâs a completely different story, there youâre right. It has no bearing on what a person may or may not become.
I never said white people were genetically superior to anyone else. Youâre making assumptions again Bur. I said 20% of the European population; some of them could be African or Indian for all we know.
It was simply an example, thereâs other genetic traits that Iâm sure would be desirable but that one was the most readily available in my mind.
Socially speaking, its a completely different story. There I agree with you.
Could you explain to me why this is? Iâm not disagreeing with you, I just havenât found a reason yet.
Iâll answer some of the other stuff when I get back, I gotta run right now.
EDIT: Iâm back.
No, I understand this I think. I see it like a tree, where two separate branches may represent the difference between say, a squirrel and a dog, and where two separate twigs may represent the difference between individual families. Itâs the same basic principle in varying levels, from macro-evolution to micro-evolution. all the words used to describe each particular⌠stage, if you will, are simply words. Itâs the same thing happening on all levels if you hold to such a theory, am I correct?
I agree it would be counterproductive to eliminate any particular race, as that eliminates genetic material for no reason. I do not agree that it would be evenly counterproductive to eliminate any particular race, whether it be majority or minority. To make my point clearer, lets say you have this camp out in the wilderness with one hundred clones, ten of them wear blue shirts, twenty wear yellow shirts and seventy wear red shirts, you cannot tell me that if you had to remove one group it wouldnât matter which group you decided to eliminate, and that is based solely on numbers and nothing else.
I would say that microorganisms probably would be the most successful in terms of survivability goes, perhaps humans are the most complex, but they are certainly not the most plentiful and definitely not the most adaptable if you are including all forms of âlifeâ. Probably the most adaptable as far as macro-organisms are concerned, but no, if the only goal for life is to keep living and spreading, bacteria and other such things have got us all beat by miles.
But isnât this the basis for all evolution, the strong survive? For billions of years life has been taking itâs strongest (by brute force, intelligence, resourcefulness or otherwise) strains and snuffing the other, less adaptable ones out. Iâm glad you brought up social darwinism, that was kind of what I was hinting at with all of this, with the continuation of life being the only goal, would that not make genocide at worst, counterproductive and at best, the strengthening of the species?
[COLOR=âPaleGreenâ]I want to reiterate that right now I am simply playing Devilâs Advocate, I do not hold any of these beliefs, personally.
Heâs saying you donât need god to get morals. Religion is one of many things that can give you the philosophical skills (and consequently morals) to live in society.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valveâs Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.
Eh, jokes aside, good idea for getting a new thread on this Rot. Might want to change the title to reflect other controversial topics, not just this one.
