No, I don't think so. Having read min for a while, I see him as just sensitive to the injustice of racism and calloused to counter-arguments against his initial impression of the case. Listening to so much theist apologia can man one too sensitive to apparent racial apologia.

I respect him, but I do disagree with him on this case.

See what the Chief of Police has to say.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/13/fl...to-happen/

Quote:Florida police chief: George Zimmerman is ‘a Sandy Hook waiting to happen’

Maybe the cops will just shoot him? We have so many police executions in this country. What's one more?

(September 17, 2013 at 10:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: See what the Chief of Police has to say.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/13/fl...to-happen/

Quote:Florida police chief: George Zimmerman is ‘a Sandy Hook waiting to happen’

Maybe the cops will just shoot him? We have so many police executions in this country. What's one more?

The police chief needs to lose his job. He has no business stating his opinion like that during a police investigation. Not only does the chief lack professionalism, he has no hard evidence other than sheer amateur speculation that Zimmerman's behavior could somehow be a Sandy Hook waiting to happen in addition to him possibly stirring up unfounded fears in private citizens. There was no gun found on Zimmerman and his wife changed her story. This new police investigation definitely seems tainted with bias against Zimmerman.

This is so dumb.

There is no such thing as race.

The .0000000001% differences between us does not constitute the huge gap in how people treat other people based on the pigment of their skin.

I can deal with people saying they saw ghosts.

I can deal with people saying they see glowing orbs all the time.

I can deal with people saying god talks to them

I can deal with all of that shit but I CANNOT deal with people in 2013 who still talk about "race" and act on "race" and deal with "race" as if it were a real thing. There are people with different backgrounds. There are people with different ideals and views. THAT IS IT.

A man killed someone.

There is a claim the other guy attacked first.

DEAL WITH THAT. Don't bring your racist shit into it.

(September 21, 2013 at 5:31 am)gilbertc06 Wrote: There is no such thing as race.

The .0000000001% differences between us does not constitute the huge gap in how people treat other people based on the pigment of their skin.

I can deal with all of that shit but I CANNOT deal with people in 2013 who still talk about "race" and act on "race" and deal with "race" as if it were a real thing. There are people with different backgrounds. There are people with different ideals and views. THAT IS IT.

I disagree.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...man-races/
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/d...exist.html

There is plenty of evidence that humanity is polytypic. This doesn't give us an excuse to treat other races differently of course, but to deny that humanity can be divided up into races is silly.

(September 21, 2013 at 11:42 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 21, 2013 at 5:31 am)gilbertc06 Wrote: There is no such thing as race.

The .0000000001% differences between us does not constitute the huge gap in how people treat other people based on the pigment of their skin.

I can deal with all of that shit but I CANNOT deal with people in 2013 who still talk about "race" and act on "race" and deal with "race" as if it were a real thing. There are people with different backgrounds. There are people with different ideals and views. THAT IS IT.

I disagree.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...man-races/
http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/d...exist.html

There is plenty of evidence that humanity is polytypic. This doesn't give us an excuse to treat other races differently of course, but to deny that humanity can be divided up into races is silly.

Well besides culture and skin color...

I don't think it's that simple.

Let's take the "every man is created equal" quote. Obviously men aren't genetically created equal. There will always be variations and certain ones may be advantageous at certain points. But when you look at different groups of people I don't deny that there are differences but they are very trivial. The most convoluted of those groups are "white" and "black". Now if you look into the concept of race from a logical standpoint then you would have to admit that not all "whites" are the same race. Same with blacks since the slave trade. If you were to look at it then you would see that whites have interbred with each other based simply on skin color and not actual race. That is my main gripe with the idea of race. It's based mostly on skin color rather than genetics.

Now, onto the genetics. You wouldn't say that a muscular man and a very skinny man are different races based on that alone would you? Even if the skinny one had a very hard time gaining weight. It's just different genetics. So why would you separate other people based on skin color and a few facial differences? Can't you say that it's just a more obvious difference in genetics brought on by different conditions?

In that sense we are not at the core, any different from each other. We just show slight differences in genetics brought on by: climate, social, geographical, etc .

People like to point out trivial things like how a traditional Japanese man would have bowel problems after eating lasagna for the first time. That is not indicative of race, that is simply diet differences. A dog can eat lasagna, you wouldn't ever call it a human being would you?

(September 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm)gilbertc06 Wrote: That is my main gripe with the idea of race. It's based mostly on skin color rather than genetics.

It used to be based on skin colour, but it isn't any more. The articles I linked to made that quite clear I thought.

Quote:Now, onto the genetics. You wouldn't say that a muscular man and a very skinny man are different races based on that alone would you? Even if the skinny one had a very hard time gaining weight. It's just different genetics. So why would you separate other people based on skin color and a few facial differences? Can't you say that it's just a more obvious difference in genetics brought on by different conditions?

Everyone has different genetics, yes, but the point is, we can compare genetics of two people and see how different they are genetically. On average, two Caucasian individuals have less genetic difference between themselves than one Caucasian and one Asian individual for example. The differences may be subtle, but sometimes they are more obvious (for instance, Asian eyes are a more prominent difference, as well as their on average shorter stature). A lot of differences are less obvious, such as certain dietary requirements or other medical problems.

Quote:In that sense we are not at the core, any different from each other. We just show slight differences in genetics brought on by: climate, social, geographical, etc .

We're all human, and we can all breed with one another, yes. However, these "slight differences" in genetics do often have profound impacts. Everyone agrees that all breeds of dog are still dogs, but there are so many variations that to a person who had never seen dogs before, a Chihuahua would look a completely different species to a Great Dane.

Quote:People like to point out trivial things like how a traditional Japanese man would have bowel problems after eating lasagna for the first time. That is not indicative of race, that is simply diet differences. A dog can eat lasagna, you wouldn't ever call it a human being would you?

I think you are confusing terms. I've never actually heard that Japanese people cannot eat lasagna, but assuming it is true, just because Caucasian people can eat lasagna does not make Japanese people not human. They are still the same species, they are just a different race. Likewise, just because a dog can eat lasagna does not mean they are part of the human race. Genetically Caucasians and Japanese are closer to each other on a genetic level than they are with any other type of animal, but the fact that differences exist between them demonstrates that although they are of the same species, they are of different races within that species, just as a Chihuahua is the same species as a Great Dane but of a different breed entirely.

It's not just one difference (like diet) that makes a race; it is many different differences in the genome. There are enough differences between Caucasians and Japanese people (or any other type of race) that we can divide humanity into these groups we call races.

(September 21, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm)gilbertc06 Wrote: That is my main gripe with the idea of race. It's based mostly on skin color rather than genetics.

It used to be based on skin colour, but it isn't any more. The articles I linked to made that quite clear I thought.

Quote:Now, onto the genetics. You wouldn't say that a muscular man and a very skinny man are different races based on that alone would you? Even if the skinny one had a very hard time gaining weight. It's just different genetics. So why would you separate other people based on skin color and a few facial differences? Can't you say that it's just a more obvious difference in genetics brought on by different conditions?

Everyone has different genetics, yes, but the point is, we can compare genetics of two people and see how different they are genetically. On average, two Caucasian individuals have less genetic difference between themselves than one Caucasian and one Asian individual for example. The differences may be subtle, but sometimes they are more obvious (for instance, Asian eyes are a more prominent difference, as well as their on average shorter stature). A lot of differences are less obvious, such as certain dietary requirements or other medical problems.

Quote:In that sense we are not at the core, any different from each other. We just show slight differences in genetics brought on by: climate, social, geographical, etc .

We're all human, and we can all breed with one another, yes. However, these "slight differences" in genetics do often have profound impacts. Everyone agrees that all breeds of dog are still dogs, but there are so many variations that to a person who had never seen dogs before, a Chihuahua would look a completely different species to a Great Dane.

Quote:People like to point out trivial things like how a traditional Japanese man would have bowel problems after eating lasagna for the first time. That is not indicative of race, that is simply diet differences. A dog can eat lasagna, you wouldn't ever call it a human being would you?

I think you are confusing terms. I've never actually heard that Japanese people cannot eat lasagna, but assuming it is true, just because Caucasian people can eat lasagna does not make Japanese people not human. They are still the same species, they are just a different race. Likewise, just because a dog can eat lasagna does not mean they are part of the human race. Genetically Caucasians and Japanese are closer to each other on a genetic level than they are with any other type of animal, but the fact that differences exist between them demonstrates that although they are of the same species, they are of different races within that species, just as a Chihuahua is the same species as a Great Dane but of a different breed entirely.

It's not just one difference (like diet) that makes a race; it is many different differences in the genome. There are enough differences between Caucasians and Japanese people (or any other type of race) that we can divide humanity into these groups we call races.

Assuming that all the above are true,

How would one go about navigating the world as humanely as possible? Would there not be more of a preference towards one "race" (assuming the differences you provided)?

By the way I think the differences are very malleable in that if you took the Japanese man and he had kids who only knew white American culture and only did white American practices then they would slowly but surely eventually start to assimilate (genetically) through generation after generation.

(September 22, 2013 at 2:09 am)gilbertc06 Wrote: ..
How would one go about navigating the world as humanely as possible? Would there not be more of a preference towards one "race" (assuming the differences you provided)?

Depending on how you define the word "humanely", we don't, we haven't, and we won't. I think the reason we call them "Races" is because it is a competition, and in recent history, the western Caucasians have been the winning team and have dominated the other races militarily.

I think we're trying to deprogram ourselves from our tribal mentalities to be empathetic to visible different people, but that will only happen slowly with a small percentage of the population really letting go of their "favorite home team."

(September 22, 2013 at 2:09 am)gilbertc06 Wrote: Assuming that all the above are true,

How would one go about navigating the world as humanely as possible? Would there not be more of a preference towards one "race" (assuming the differences you provided)?

Easily...just treat all other humans the same way. There are differences between races, but there are differences between individuals as well. Every person, and every race has differences that make them inferior in a way, but also that make them superior in a way when compared to other individuals / races. For instance, Africans tend to be faster on average, and Asians smarter. The point is, no race is ultimately superior; we all have our advantages and disadvantages.

Quote:By the way I think the differences are very malleable in that if you took the Japanese man and he had kids who only knew white American culture and only did white American practices then they would slowly but surely eventually start to assimilate (genetically) through generation after generation.

Certainly, and that is how you get mixed race people. However it would likely take a while for the traits to become unnoticeable.