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?
of couse I'm gonna comment...i'm not an intellectural slave to any man or god. And I've had many a crackpot prof...they were often brilliant to boot..
My age crack is more hilarious than you can imagine..one day I'll share it with you..maybe
You have a funny age crack that you want to share, but not today.
I'm not sure what that's in relation to, but I guess we'll all have to wait for it.
Pope, I don't think I've ever called anyone a white supremacist..that's is so far removed from most, if not all, people who share this site. However racism, which is a part of white supremacy (not supremacist), is innate in most, if not all, whites in America, if not the world. They were educated that way. Just like a sense of inferiority is in most, if not all, Blacks in America, if not the world... messed up ain't it?
Well yeah it's messed up, and always has been. There's a lot of momentum in culture, especially "successful" (or should I just say dominant) culture. I happen to feel that "maintaining supremacy" (to various degrees) is innate in all humans. It's not the only human quality that we all need to be reflective and self-corrective about, but it's near the top of the list.
It's always been hard for me to not get angry at people who just go along with the daily media and daily cultural influences, and with so little self-reflection (which I think is what you mean by looking inward).
I'm worried about how to reach those, ignorant people, and help them think for themselves rather than just blindly, obediently following their local culture's worn pathways, or always feeling like they have to respond to one or other kind of evil, threatening, outside force. That is unfortunately human nature that most people in the world are not reflective enough about--if they even have the time to be reflective, in between surviving from day to day.
So I think you and I agree a lot on what the dominant culture should be doing. Maybe I'm still trying to figure out how to enlighten people (or learn from them) before closing the door in their face out of frustration.
I'm not too sure about the innateness in "all" humans need to for supremacy. But that be as it may, we are talking about a CULTURAL need..that members of the culture need to band together under this "white" or "European" banner for dominance and to maintain white cultural supremacy..The reason, I believe, they where able to band together was because they had a shared deep cultural structure developed in their particular environment in Europe during their cultural infancy. When they went to different shores all they found were black and brown peoples with an alternative deep cultural structure. no match, one had to go..and what we have today is an extension of that conflict. Hell it's only been, in earnest, only 600 some years...
I feel you on the not getting angry part Pope and I do understand where you are coming from. However I don't think you'll reach many because of self interest, the bible, and bad genes...
Should she now be ashamed because she is blonde and white? The new racism?
this has nothing to do with shame..look, if "all scientist agreed" that people with long hair are perfect in the sense of being beautiful or pretty, what happens to the West African phenotype? These "scientist" are members of "Western' culture. WTH, new racism???? no it's old racism in a new form..
So, you are implying that scientists should lie or bury results, if the truth would hurt some people's feelings. That wouldn't be science.
All this over a study misinterpreted by a reporter.
Blame the journalist, not the scientists.
I'm still confused, possibly as I missed the middle 9 pages and couldn't face reading them all to see what the answer might be.
Are we calling the article racist or the research or the result the research reached?
I don't see how the research or its result can be racist. In order for that to be the case, some aspect of culture, or history, or upbringing or religion or something, had to bias the study towards finding a white face the most perfect more than the demographics of the population the sample was drawn from would warrant.
The only thing I can think of that would fit this criteria is if it is a statistical fact that white faces are more likely to be symmetrical than other races and the rsearchers knew this when they decided that the amount of symmetry goverened a faces perfection. (The fact that the idea that any one face can be called objectively perfect seems ridiculous to me anyway but that is beside the point).
If symmetry is evenly distributed among human faces, then the choice of symmetry as a measure of perfection was categorically NOT racist.
The next thing that could be racist is if the scientists chose a pool of faces that they knew was overly white compared to the demographics. Do you have any evidence that they knew in advance that their group was over white?
What else is there? That the article called her beautiful when the scientists said perfect is wrong, but I don't see that as racist unless they have reported on similar studies that found a non-white winner and didn't use the word beautiful.
If you run a test on a group of people that will produce a single winner, that winner will be of a single race and other races will not produce a winner in that test.
If I measured a large sample of British men and announced that the tallest one I found was Bob, a white man from Bristol, would that be racist?
I may have missed something you wrote on this, but I don't see the diffrence.
Could you adress my questions? I think they are reasonable.
Elsethread he said he was travelling, so it might be a day or two before he can respond again.
Matt the research was legit symmetrical faces are attractive to some, however it's not attractive or PERFECT as far as beauty in all cultures. They are speaking in universal terms when symmetry, regarding beauty, is specific as "all (those) scientist agreed." This universalism, applying what is applicable to one culture, applicable to ALL is what is racist ESPECIALLY when that culture also controls the means to "power."
as for your example if you had said the tallest one was the most perfect then yes..
Dave your respond will take a little longer going to a southern city to attend a ceremony..I need to find out how genes build cells.
I have to put these things to the test to see if i can understand it better: i don't know how recessive genes can make somatic cells and those cells then can pass on heredity. I just don't understand it YET..or even if that's a real question..
What is DNA?
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA).
What is a gene?
A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes, which are made up of DNA, act as instructions to make molecules called proteins. In humans, genes vary in size from a few hundred DNA bases to more than 2 million bases. The Human Genome Project has estimated that humans have between 20,000 and 25,000 genes.
Every person has two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent. Most genes are the same in all people, but a small number of genes (less than 1 percent of the total) are slightly different between people. Alleles are forms of the same gene with small differences in their sequence of DNA bases. These small differences contribute to each person’s unique physical features.
What is a chromosome?
In the nucleus of each cell, the DNA molecule is packaged into thread-like structures called chromosomes. Each chromosome is made up of DNA tightly coiled many times around proteins called histones that support its structure.
Chromosomes are not visible in the cell’s nucleus—not even under a microscope—when the cell is not dividing. However, the DNA that makes up chromosomes becomes more tightly packed during cell division and is then visible under a microscope. Most of what researchers know about chromosomes was learned by observing chromosomes during cell division.
Each chromosome has a constriction point called the centromere, which divides the chromosome into two sections, or “arms.” The short arm of the chromosome is labeled the “p arm.” The long arm of the chromosome is labeled the “q arm.” The location of the centromere on each chromosome gives the chromosome its characteristic shape, and can be used to help describe the location of specific genes.