I'm being straight up and honest, I think atheist are the cream of da crop in a world of theist. I say this because I know one thing about all atheist, they can figure out B.S. That's why I'm asking this pointed question, do you think this is racist?
While I basically agree with you that there's no evidence of a racial bias, we don't know a lot about how the research was done. Did they consider people of all races? Clearly they didn't consider everyone in the world (I know they didn't consider me!). Also, only the article writer used the word "pretty" at all. At least in the article, the researchers were looking for perfect, not pretty. Isn't it possible we'd find a less perfect face prettier than a perfect one? I know I'm often attracted to women whose faces display some sort of cute flaw, like a crooked smile or a gap in the upper front teeth. Some people even regard freckles as a flaw (I certainly don't), so I wonder how something like that was handled?
So the picture (phenotype) doesn't give any clue to racial bias? The idea of "perfect" is subjective and if you have one world view (scientist agreed, western scientist I'm willing to bet) of what "perfect" is, and promote it as such, that is bias, when applied to one culture's idea of perfect in the sense of asthetics, (symmetical) becomes racial bias.
Why does symmetry have to be "beautiful?" It can be balanced but that's different from beautiful. Some cultures consider large nostrils in disproportion (not balanced) to the face as beautiful or "pretty."
Craig, Craig, Craig...I don't think I can ever get through to you..there was no need to use words, did you see her face? lol damn...denial, we don't need denial..you went so far as to find there's no god, don't stop there..
So the fact that they picked a white face is prima facie evidence that they are racists?
Look they had to pick somebody's face. I guess the fact that this was done in the UK doesn't excuse them from having to deliberately select an African face (that is one whose ancestors left Africa more recently than mine did), even though Africans are a much smaller proportion of the population there than they are in the US.
Of course if they deliberately selected an African face because it was African and they wouldn't want Shabaka to think they were racist... that would be deliberately selecting someone because of their race and that would be, well, racist!
Do you have any notion how absurd you look, pushing this grievance here?
naw it means nothing that white people picked a white face..btw what percentage of whites compared to other peoples are there on the planet?
lol i know exactly how some view this..and if they DELIBERATELY chose a black face then it would be hiding behing the idea of universalism.
But this is about more than color of skin this is about cultural perceptions and the dominance of one world view..which is not only racist, but unhealthy
It most likely has to do with the fact that they are in the UK, writing for a UK market.
naw it means nothing that white people picked a white face.
I love how you just assume that every single one of those scientists were white. They must've been white. There are no black scientists, right?
You're the racist. Making color an issue where it isn't.
Let me guess, after they fired you from your job for using the word "faggot," did they replace you by a black person? Would explain a lot.
a black person fired me..
as far as assuming all where white scientist, 99% of black people love jesus.
There are approximately 1.376 billion 'white' people in the world, approximately 20.25% of the world's population.
This could make a case for genocide of the other 80 percent..if not physical then mental..who was the prettiest in all the land again with their "symmetical" face?
Like a moth to the flame. Someone give me a sledge hammer so I can pound myself. Thank you.
what about a different kinda book?
I don't understand how you thought this was racist. However, there was a time when brown car interiors were the shit back in the 70's.