ClavierCavalier wrote:
The doctor horrified with disgust doesn't compare to the captain, though...
His mum-in-law has just walk in.
Racism on live chess
Sort:
Feb 16, 2013
0
#203
corrijean wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
Did a little research and came across this:
"...found evidence that, as compared to individuals dependent on agriculture, the diet of hunter-gatherers seems to have been more varied and nutritionally sound. Clearly, a diet based on one or only a few crops should have been deleterious to health in the pre-Columbian era ..."
-Tábita Hünemeier, et al. Evolutionary Responses to a Constructed Niche: Ancient Mesoamericans as a Model of Gene Culture Coevolution
So the comparison was between hunter-gatherers and groups that had a diet based on one or a few crops. That doesn't sound like they knew about nutritional values of food.
Sunshiny, I respect your feelings on this topic, however, I must point out that pre-Columbians were in the Americas. So they weren't very old from an evolutionary standpoint.
Yes, and that only makes their comparison even weaker. They only pointed out something that would be obvious to us.
Sunshiny wrote:
corrijean wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
Did a little research and came across this:
"...found evidence that, as compared to individuals dependent on agriculture, the diet of hunter-gatherers seems to have been more varied and nutritionally sound. Clearly, a diet based on one or only a few crops should have been deleterious to health in the pre-Columbian era ..."
-Tábita Hünemeier, et al. Evolutionary Responses to a Constructed Niche: Ancient Mesoamericans as a Model of Gene Culture Coevolution
So the comparison was between hunter-gatherers and groups that had a diet based on one or a few crops. That doesn't sound like they knew about nutritional values of food.
Sunshiny, I respect your feelings on this topic, however, I must point out that pre-Columbians were in the Americas. So they weren't very old from an evolutionary standpoint.
Yes, and that only makes their comparison even weaker. They only pointed out something that would be obvious to us.
So, If I understand you well, Sunshiny :
1-You found a study that is vaguely related to the subject (keywords 'diet', 'vegetarian', 'evolution' when actually it has nothing to do with what we are discussing : it is talking of genetic modifications related with culture in a very small closed environment (a 'niche')),
2-You quoted, maybe out of context, one sentence of that study that seems to go weakly against your previous argumentation,
3-You infer from that one sentence that all the relevant research that has been done on the topic really discussed is invalid. Sure, one sentence
It just seems wrong, don't you think ?
Feb 16, 2013
0
#205
No, that study was connected to the other. Possibly one cited the other in their research.
Feb 16, 2013
0
#206
Ziryab wrote:
Research concerned with sketetal remains in pre- and post-conquest America revealed that civilized farmers had the worst heath, while hunter - gatherers had the best. Animal protein must be a factor in the good health, while a diet based on corn must be the culprit in those with poor health,
See Richard H. Steckel, Jerome C. Rose, Clark Spencer Larsen, and Phillip L. Walker, “Skeletal Health in the Western Hemisphere From 4000 B.C. to the Present,” Evolutionary Anthropology 11 (2002), 142-155.
Does this not closely match the other? I was trying to find excerpts from the book when it brought me to the other. I believe i ran across a bibliography page with which i copied and pasted the quote, as is.
Sunshiny wrote:
shutupandbark wrote:
Inexcusably stupid. I despise bigots. About 5 times in the last year while I was playing on "igoogle" people made bigotted remarks about me being a white southerner. I would never dream of wasting my time trying to "report" someone though. But then again, I have a life. People need to ask themselves; "Am I trying to fight bigotry or am I looking for revenge wrapped in justice?" Advise: Move on. The need to silence people or punish them perpetuates racism and bigotry ten times worse than ignoring them does.
Really? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. The way i see it, if nobody speaks out against it, it perpetuates and appears to be acceptable behaviour. It won't stop because they'll suddenly realize "Hey, i'm not having an affect on them." It isn't done merely to put down the other person, but also to feel superior and/or better while releasing some anger.
You can speak out against it if you would like. Ill join you. Racism, sexism, is all denounced constantly. But once you start trying to silence people the loons take over. Next thing you know, phrases like "praise jesus," and "that is so gay" or even telling someone "ill pray for you" will be banned. Disagreeing with popular thought will be called bullying and banned. (As is the case already on MANY blogs and forums.) The idea of free speech is designed to protect dispicable speech. Popular speech will protect itself.
Sunshiny wrote:
shutupandbark wrote:
Inexcusably stupid. I despise bigots. About 5 times in the last year while I was playing on "igoogle" people made bigotted remarks about me being a white southerner. I would never dream of wasting my time trying to "report" someone though. But then again, I have a life. People need to ask themselves; "Am I trying to fight bigotry or am I looking for revenge wrapped in justice?" Advise: Move on. The need to silence people or punish them perpetuates racism and bigotry ten times worse than ignoring them does.
Really? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. The way i see it, if nobody speaks out against it, it perpetuates and appears to be acceptable behaviour. It won't stop because they'll suddenly realize "Hey, i'm not having an affect on them." It isn't done merely to put down the other person, but also to feel superior and/or better while releasing some anger.
Allow them their say. Then eviscerate them with facts and reason. Demonstrate their ignorance and unreasonableness. The US is probably the least racist nation on the planet. And we did it with free speech and open exchange of ideas. And now, even though they are free to say what they like, you seldom hear from racist groups. Minority racist groups are tolerated, because of their lack of influence. But historically dangerous groups such as the KKK hide in shame. Because they were challenged in the arena of ideas and defeated. Shows like “Geraldo” “Montel Williams” and “Oprah” showed how stupid they were by allowing them maximum exposure.If they thought like you, these groups would still be mysterious and intriguing.
Feb 16, 2013
0
#209
shutupandbark wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
shutupandbark wrote:
Inexcusably stupid. I despise bigots. About 5 times in the last year while I was playing on "igoogle" people made bigotted remarks about me being a white southerner. I would never dream of wasting my time trying to "report" someone though. But then again, I have a life. People need to ask themselves; "Am I trying to fight bigotry or am I looking for revenge wrapped in justice?" Advise: Move on. The need to silence people or punish them perpetuates racism and bigotry ten times worse than ignoring them does.
Really? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. The way i see it, if nobody speaks out against it, it perpetuates and appears to be acceptable behaviour. It won't stop because they'll suddenly realize "Hey, i'm not having an affect on them." It isn't done merely to put down the other person, but also to feel superior and/or better while releasing some anger.
Allow them their say. Then eviscerate them with facts and reason. Demonstrate their ignorance and unreasonableness. The US is probably the least racist nation on the planet. And we did it with free speech and open exchange of ideas. And now, even though they are free to say what they like, you seldom hear from racist groups. Minority racist groups are tolerated, because of their lack of influence. But historically dangerous groups such as the KKK hide in shame. Because they were challenged in the arena of ideas and defeated. Shows like “Geraldo” “Montel Williams” and “Oprah” showed how stupid they were by allowing them maximum exposure.If they thought like you, these groups would still be mysterious and intriguing.
The KKK was last open and active before Geraldo, Montel, and Oprah were born.
Such an error in simple cause and effect mutes any truth that might exist among the rest of your history and sociological observations.
I think, rather, that such barely concealed racism as exists in the fervent hatred of the current President by a vocal minority augers against any claims that minimize the persistence of racism in the United States.
shutupandbark wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
shutupandbark wrote:
Inexcusably stupid. I despise bigots. About 5 times in the last year while I was playing on "igoogle" people made bigotted remarks about me being a white southerner. I would never dream of wasting my time trying to "report" someone though. But then again, I have a life. People need to ask themselves; "Am I trying to fight bigotry or am I looking for revenge wrapped in justice?" Advise: Move on. The need to silence people or punish them perpetuates racism and bigotry ten times worse than ignoring them does.
Really? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. The way i see it, if nobody speaks out against it, it perpetuates and appears to be acceptable behaviour. It won't stop because they'll suddenly realize "Hey, i'm not having an affect on them." It isn't done merely to put down the other person, but also to feel superior and/or better while releasing some anger.
Allow them their say. Then eviscerate them with facts and reason. Demonstrate their ignorance and unreasonableness. The US is probably the least racist nation on the planet. And we did it with free speech and open exchange of ideas. And now, even though they are free to say what they like, you seldom hear from racist groups. Minority racist groups are tolerated, because of their lack of influence. But historically dangerous groups such as the KKK hide in shame. Because they were challenged in the arena of ideas and defeated. Shows like “Geraldo” “Montel Williams” and “Oprah” showed how stupid they were by allowing them maximum exposure.If they thought like you, these groups would still be mysterious and intriguing.
Bold statement!
Speaking out however is correct thing to do as you say.
This then leaves no hiding-place and negates ignorance as a valid excuse. In Europe these issues are commonly countered via independent media making others aware.
Uncommon to deny or pretend it does not exist.
Feb 16, 2013
0
#211
shutupandbark wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
shutupandbark wrote:
Inexcusably stupid. I despise bigots. About 5 times in the last year while I was playing on "igoogle" people made bigotted remarks about me being a white southerner. I would never dream of wasting my time trying to "report" someone though. But then again, I have a life. People need to ask themselves; "Am I trying to fight bigotry or am I looking for revenge wrapped in justice?" Advise: Move on. The need to silence people or punish them perpetuates racism and bigotry ten times worse than ignoring them does.
Really? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. The way i see it, if nobody speaks out against it, it perpetuates and appears to be acceptable behaviour. It won't stop because they'll suddenly realize "Hey, i'm not having an affect on them." It isn't done merely to put down the other person, but also to feel superior and/or better while releasing some anger.
You can speak out against it if you would like. Ill join you. Racism, sexism, is all denounced constantly. But once you start trying to silence people the loons take over. Next thing you know, phrases like "praise jesus," and "that is so gay" or even telling someone "ill pray for you" will be banned. Disagreeing with popular thought will be called bullying and banned. (As is the case already on MANY blogs and forums.) The idea of free speech is designed to protect dispicable speech. Popular speech will protect itself.
We're somewhat on the same page. I agree that they shouldn't be silenced. However, there is a time and place for everything. If they want to hold an assembly or have a website to state how they hate X, then that's probably acceptable. Going on someone else's website and unloading it on someone, is not. Even free speech has its limits. Their freedom ends where mine begins (and vice versa.)
soorat wrote:
How did a thread on racism turn into a debate between meat eaters and vegetarians?
Btw not all people are vegetarian because of the idea killing animals for food is morally wrong (though i would counter your statement of sentimental nonsense by pointing out that is your opinion - everyone should be entitled though to their own and some may vary from yours)
i am just not that keen on the taste of most meats i've tried - although i will eat fish
This is the best argument I've heard for vegetarianism since the time when I heard, "I can't eat meat. It makes me ill."
The whole "moral vegetarian" thing is just disguised hatred of plants.
My wife is a vegetarian and her rationale is that she couldn't personally kill the animal so she doesn't feel entitled to eat the meat of an animal someone else killed.
Also, she hates plants.
Benkobaby wrote:
You do that Andy - you get that bad taste right out of your misinformed, backward, illiterate arse.
Oh yeah?! Well, you're a big fatty!!!
(We can still make fun of blimps, right?)
Ziryab wrote:
shutupandbark wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
shutupandbark wrote:
Inexcusably stupid. I despise bigots. About 5 times in the last year while I was playing on "igoogle" people made bigotted remarks about me being a white southerner. I would never dream of wasting my time trying to "report" someone though. But then again, I have a life. People need to ask themselves; "Am I trying to fight bigotry or am I looking for revenge wrapped in justice?" Advise: Move on. The need to silence people or punish them perpetuates racism and bigotry ten times worse than ignoring them does.
Really? I'd like to hear your explanation for this. The way i see it, if nobody speaks out against it, it perpetuates and appears to be acceptable behaviour. It won't stop because they'll suddenly realize "Hey, i'm not having an affect on them." It isn't done merely to put down the other person, but also to feel superior and/or better while releasing some anger.
Allow them their say. Then eviscerate them with facts and reason. Demonstrate their ignorance and unreasonableness. The US is probably the least racist nation on the planet. And we did it with free speech and open exchange of ideas. And now, even though they are free to say what they like, you seldom hear from racist groups. Minority racist groups are tolerated, because of their lack of influence. But historically dangerous groups such as the KKK hide in shame. Because they were challenged in the arena of ideas and defeated. Shows like “Geraldo” “Montel Williams” and “Oprah” showed how stupid they were by allowing them maximum exposure.If they thought like you, these groups would still be mysterious and intriguing.
The KKK was last open and active before Geraldo, Montel, and Oprah were born.
Such an error in simple cause and effect mutes any truth that might exist among the rest of your history and sociological observations.
I think, rather, that such barely concealed racism as exists in the fervent hatred of the current President by a vocal minority augers against any claims that minimize the persistence of racism in the United States.
You mean specific racism towards the president, or racism because people disagreee with him? I think he was voted in twice. Can you name another industrialized nation that has elected a minority president?
How many other countries have you been to?
Feb 21, 2013
0
#217
I'm wondering about shutupandbark's question. How many leading nations have had minority leaders? I can't think of one in Europe. Places that were dominated by Europeans probably shouldn't count, at least not until they allowed the majority to actually have a vote. Someone that springs to mind is Tatcher being the first an only female Prime Minister of the UK, but it's really hard to say that women are a minority when they generally have a greater number than men.
Now, don't go saying something absurd like that Mexico has a Mexican president and therefore they elect a minority all of the time. In Mexico, Mexicans are not a minority within the population.
Feb 22, 2013
0
#218
Israel elected a woman in 1949. Ten years later, Ireland elected a Jew. Several European nations have elected women. Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish, although he converted. Robert Jenkinson (Lord Liverpool) was Anglo-Indian (his maternal grandmother was Indian).
All these serve only to highlight President Obama's notability as a minority national leader.
His success, and his reelection by the majority does not make the US "the least racist nation," nor does it address the barely concealed, and occasionally quite overt racism of a vocal and significant minority.
I do think that Americans (and others) need to stop stereotyping the American South as the seat of this racism, however. My little corner of the United States (one of several so-called Inland Empires) has successfully (by design at times) maintained a population nearly 95% White. The racism here is less visible than some places, but that renders it more difficult to eradicate.
Feb 22, 2013
0
#219
The Jews that you pointed out is interesting. I had to look up Jenkinson, but his mother was part Indian and he may have looked very white. Can't know for sure since they didn't have photographs. He was also of British nobility by birth, giving him a large advantage. Did the majority of people get to vote in those days? There isn't anything wrong with electing women, but I thought I already addressed women not being a racial minority?
Only a small percentage of the US population actually votes. I believe it's less than 40%. One could say that the majority of these few didn't let racism effect their vote. So, we can say that if 30% of the country voted, and 60% of them voted for Obama, that's about 18% of the country we know isn't racist. That's not a very good statement. Obama's election is quite more complex than just racism, of course.
The doctor horrified with disgust doesn't compare to the captain, though...