Is there a superior race?
What with all going on in the world, what is your opinion? It is not Racist(much). We are born a certain color, not out of choice. so how can we be proud of it?
Yes | 26 | |
No | 51 | |
I agree with the description. | 8 |
Ask Your Question today
What with all going on in the world, what is your opinion? It is not Racist(much). We are born a certain color, not out of choice. so how can we be proud of it?
Yes | 26 | |
No | 51 | |
I agree with the description. | 8 |
There's certain small things that are adaptations of the environment
If you are darker-skinned, you will thrive better in the tropics than lighter skinned people, because your dark pigmented skin is an adaptation that gives you natural defense to strong sunlight. In contrast, being lighter skinned is better for living in higher latitudes where there is less sunlight, as you gain vitamin D from the sun more easily (but get too much sometimes and burn, so not good for the tropics).
If we're talking things like athletic ability, intelligence, etc then there's no one group who are superior. Things like IQ and physical health are more to do with upbringing, wealth and status and environmental factors than with genetics (not always, but most of the time).
I don`t think there is any particular race which is superior but I do think that there are people of superior quality in respect of others and it doesnt have to do with race, looks or money but with principles, creativity and intelligence.
It's not so much race anymore, but whether you were born male or female.
The world isn't as critical or as doubtful on men. As long as he's able body, mentally stable, focused, and coopertive, he can get anywhere if he's determined enough. Same thing goes for women, but who we are and what we're potentially capable of are heavily influenced by our apperance and demeanor, so we have to work harder to prove we're right for the job despite being female.
I'm sorry but you are very out of touch with reality if you think the world isn't as critical or doubtful on men as it is on women. It is on men far more than women. The burden of overall responsibility is consistently placed on men to move society and civilization forward.
Everything you listed (able body, mentally stable, etc) are all factors needed to be productive regardless of gender.
And saying you have to "work harder" to prove yourself is just a byproduct of how women are NOT the same physically as men. Which is unarguable. If more women aren't making the cut, that's simple biology, it doesn't mean you lower the standards and endanger everyone as a result.
And that's exactly what American society has been doing now for a couple generations. Putting people in charge (men and women) who have almost no qualifications or skills to be in those positions.
It doesn't take a great leap of logic to see the connection between this and the gradual decay of that same society.
Then you and RBG250 should talk. She/he thinks women can do anything, and you think men have the burden of advancing the world, and that woman work harder due to biology.
My point, since it was miss, is that life isn't as equal as everyone likes to delude themselves into thinking. Life is hard work. Life is proving you're capable of ANY job, especially if you're a woman. Yeah, there are jobs that women are good at more than men, and men have to prove themselves in that field more, mmmkay. However, not every manager is going to look at, Jessica, Amanda, Susan, and more and go, "You can do anything you put your mind to sweetheart. You got this."
Nah. That's not true at all. Women are not victims they have tons of opportunities in society and even have more advantages than men in many fields. By telling our daughters they're born with a handicap we're creating an environment for them to fail. You're enabling the sentiment that women aren't as good as have to work harder to be valued by society.
Men and women are not unequal in opportunity. Maybe they were years ago but the environment has completely shifted recently and women have tremendous opportunity.
Men are judged in many ways that women straight up ignore and write off as an only female issue as well as many predominately male issues. Women have way more support from society.
Scientifically, race isn't real. Being white is a mutation that is a result of a vitamin d deficiency. Due to the eve gene we have all been traced back to one woman in Africa. So technically all of humanity was once 'black.' The reason the difference in appearances formed was due to isolated societies over long periods of time. For example Native Americans had no way of repopulating with, say Africans, in the 1400's so the two 'races' couldn't mix. As time goes on, it is very likely that eventually there won't be races at all anymore. Since now, with modern technology, people can live and go just about anywhere. Not just black people live in Africa anymore and not just Native Americans live in America anymore. Humanity is mixing, whether people want it to or not.
There can't be a superior race if race doesn't exist. We are all human and we all bleed red.
Well, Raven, you're half right. Because species aren't real either. There are no humans, no dogs, no rats and no orangutans either. We're just MAMMALS. After all, we all bleed red. Right?
The biological definition of race is when two members of the same race can have sex with each other and make a baby. A white person and black person can have a baby together. A cat and a dog cannot have a baby together. What don't you understand about that?
All humans belong to the same race. The differences we see in skin color and features are only due to ethnicity/culture.
I have light skin because of my culture? I did not know that.
And by your logic, pit bulls and border collies are literally no different.
That's a breed. A breed is a sub-species within a species, therefore they can repopulate. Honestly, if you don't believe me you can look this up. There have been multiple studies on this by very creditable sources.
Also you might want to research taxonomy too, because I think you are confused on what breed, species, and race mean.
Okay I think my previous response to you didn't get posted because my computer is being weird, but if it did and you're seeing it twice that's why.
Pit bulls and border collies are different breeds of the same species. A breed is not the same thing as a race because a breed is a sub-species. They have different genetic material but because they are the same species they can repopulate. Humans don't have breeds/sub-species. Race is appearance and genetic variation, but it isn't a breed. And yes it is related to your culture because it is related to where geographically your ancestors lived.
As far as us all being mammals, that is our phylum. But if you go farther down the classification system we separate and separate all the way down to species, which is how we are different from dogs, rats, and orangutans.
Humans are one species with no sub-species, we are all the same.
If you don't believe me you really should look this up. You should never talk about something you aren't fully informed on, right?
Dog breeds are a result of human intervention. 'Unnatural selection' if you like.. They are all the same species, like humans are all the same species, with superficial adaptations to different climates. 'Race' is a completely man-made idea, by people who only saw different skin colour on others.
If you walk from Europe to the bottom of Africa there is no sudden change.. Skin gradually darkens towards the equator.
Just as the gradual extinction of Neanderthals was a result of "natural selection". Dog breeds are a part of natural selection just as humans are a part of natural selection. Would dogs exist without humans? No, but that doesn't mean it still isn't "natural selection".
Neanderthals and modern humans could interbreed very easily.
Neither are classified as the exact same species...
If you honestly believe that the species of humans you would encounter on your walk through Europe are the same as the species of humans you encounter on your walk through Africa, you are very wrong.
My point is that human races, like dog breeds, are distinct and thus worthy of preservation.
I'm surprised you hadn't brought up a book called The Bell Curve that'd get you BANNED in a heartbeat...
Jarrod Taylors latest video... American Renaissance
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZILczN5BVsQ
Aw thanks!! It's something my mom always told me growing up, and I don't think it applies just to the color of your skin or to humans. I think it's more about how we all feel pain. There's about a million things you can apply it to, but the most common one is race just because I think some people think that if you are one 'race' and not the other you are lesser and your pain doesn't matter. Or it's forgotten that they feel pain at all.
All anyone's really doing here is simply regurgitating back the old mantras they heard from their college professors. And I call them mantras because that's precisely what they are. "There's only one race and that's the human race!" is not an argument. It's not a scientific fact. It's a string of words that in and of itself means nothing; it's a feel-good slogan and nothing more.
But is it really so hard to stop and consider just what it is that you're saying? Any honest person would be able to see that such arguments hold no water whatsoever.
"We all bleed red" is not valid because all mammals bleed red. But no one says that humans and raccoons are the same.
"We're all just human" is not valid because it assumes an arbitrary classification that, while technically true, is irrelevant. It's really a lot like saying "You shouldn't care whether you use salt or cinnamon in your cooking, because they're both just spices."
"Race can't exist because the different races are inter-fertile" is, again, just like saying that different breeds of dog are the same, due to the fact that they are inter-fertile. But, alas, no one says that. No one.
"We're over 99% genetically identical" is another half-truth that is addressed in the video I posted.
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that it is very, VERY unlikely that after being separated by thousands of years of evolution and thus taking on distinct appearances as well as irrefutable physical distinctions (such as maturation rates and susceptibility to disease) the respective intelligence of each race remained unchanged?
One more question: If it's so backward to advocate for the preservation of the White races of the world, is it also wrong to wish to save the pandas? After all, even they go extinct we've still got plenty of grizzly bears, and just what's the difference anyway? After all, bears are bears, right?
What isn't racist?
Not the believe that there's a superior race, right? Cause that would be the textbook definition of racism.
It is. It leads to arrogance and a false sense of entitlement. Those things are the cause of almost everything that's wrong with the world.
It's not about biology, evolution or history; It's just a silly reason why "we are better than everyone else". It's a way for people to feel superior without actually having to achieve anything.
Isn't it weird that most "white supremacy" people are at the bottom of society? I mean if they're so superior how did that happen?
That's just an example. There's racism all over the world against pretty much everyone.
The reason why it seems like a lot of White Nationalists are of the lower class is because richer and more successful White people have little if any need for any type of nationalism to begin with. Why would they when they can just buy a house in an overwhelmingly White neighborhood and comfortably lie low for the rest of their lives?
Furthermore, it's important to note that the leaders of the White Nationalist movement as well as prominent racialist thinkers in general tend to be a very far cry from the alcoholic redneck stereotype that you seem to be hinting at. Do your research and among them you'll find inventors, Yale graduates, physics professors.....and the co-discoverer of DNA.
Yes, but the white race is the one that has achieved the most throughout the history.
In recent history maybe. But there were many high cultures throughout history. Asia, Africa and the Middle East were all way ahead of Europe for thousands of years.
Of course if you mesure "achievement" in attacking and conquering other cultures, then yes, white people have done well for themselves. But I don't think being the biggest bully makes you superior.
Do you realize that the pseudoscientific philosophy of racialism included Arabs in "the white race" (people from the Middle East), so therefore the white race, with militant Islam of the last 1300 years, combined with colonialism and crusades, and the responsibility of nearly all genocides in history, is the one that has committed the greatest number of atrocities.
How is that something to be proud of?