namelesstavern.net

Agrajag wrote:I got to thinking about an earlier post of mine on the subject of Homosexuality. I posted that there is no purpose for it. I started thinking about it and did come up with a natural reason for homosexuality and why it only affects 1-3% of the populace.

Population control.

That's it in a nutshell. The fags aren't hurting you, they're helping you by not procreating

The problem with this idea is that the "gay gene" is suspected to live on the X chromosome, not the Y chromosome


this means that if suzie is a straight girl, but she has gay brothers, she has a good chance of having gay children

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

There's a fair amount of conversation about what actually determines different "races" of human

Skin colour really doesn't enter the picture much, as it's really just a regional adaptation to the amount of sun a culture gets

A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Tikker wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

There's a fair amount of conversation about what actually determines different "races" of human

Skin colour really doesn't enter the picture much, as it's really just a regional adaptation to the amount of sun a culture gets

A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Ah, afraid to address this aspect of evolution. Rather shy of the racism stigma attached to it, are we? The human race, just like many other species, has branched off into sub groups. In broad terms, which sub group of humans is the most inferior, from an evolutionary point of view of course?

Wrath Child wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

There's a fair amount of conversation about what actually determines different "races" of human

Skin colour really doesn't enter the picture much, as it's really just a regional adaptation to the amount of sun a culture gets

A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Ah, afraid to address this aspect of evolution. Rather shy of the racism stigma attached to it, are we? The human race, just like many other species, has branched off into sub groups. In broad terms, which sub group of humans is the most inferior, from an evolutionary point of view of course?

How exactly would you break up the population of the world into subgroups? What would be your standards to seperate 1 group from another?

Black, White and Asian would be a good start. Of those three huge groups, which is the most inferior?

In what sense?

Muscle density on Blacks is off the scale in comparison to the other two...

for one example

Harrison wrote:In what sense?

Muscle density on Blacks is off the scale in comparison to the other two...

for one example

Are you suggesting that blacks are more primitive? More ape-like? Maybe they're the missing link, you think?

We're not allowed to think such things...it's "bad" because of whiny liberals.

Wrath Child wrote:Black, White and Asian would be a good start. Of those three huge groups, which is the most inferior?

I wouldn't consider any one of those to be inferior or superior to one another in general.

Wrath Child wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

There's a fair amount of conversation about what actually determines different "races" of human

Skin colour really doesn't enter the picture much, as it's really just a regional adaptation to the amount of sun a culture gets

A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Ah, afraid to address this aspect of evolution. Rather shy of the racism stigma attached to it, are we? The human race, just like many other species, has branched off into sub groups. In broad terms, which sub group of humans is the most inferior, from an evolutionary point of view of course?

Human 'subgroups' are fully capable of interbreeding, in fact we do it all the time (being a rather randy bunch of primates). In terms of 'inferior', I suspect you would do rather badly dropped into either Baffin Island or the Kalahari Desert. 'Inferior' isn't a term used in evolution - it's 'fitness'.

Of course, you're just *playing* at being an idiot to score cheap debating points, aren't you? Anyone stupid enough to think there are 'inferior' groups of humans should be on WebTV or off having their white robe (with the extra embroidery and the nice pointy cap) cleaned.

Maybe if you were to come up with a set of criteria to judge who was 'inferior' we could see your particular ideological biases?

--R.

Wrath Child wrote:Black, White and Asian would be a good start. Of those three huge groups, which is the most inferior?

Actually, picking those groups is a pretty stupid start. The variation across each of those groups is huge.

--R.

Wrath Child wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

There's a fair amount of conversation about what actually determines different "races" of human

Skin colour really doesn't enter the picture much, as it's really just a regional adaptation to the amount of sun a culture gets

A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Ah, afraid to address this aspect of evolution. Rather shy of the racism stigma attached to it, are we? The human race, just like many other species, has branched off into sub groups. In broad terms, which sub group of humans is the most inferior, from an evolutionary point of view of course?

Cultural groups doesn't really equate to a differentiation of race or species

If you want to differentiate based on the visual, go for it

if you want to calculate success of a race based on colour, you pretty much are going to have to go by population size

of white/black/asian, I'm pretty sure the asians are jabowning everyone else atm

Aren't dogs considered the same species? Pretty large variety in that group no? Can they all interbreed?

Living in China I SERIOUSLY think that Chinese IN China are inferior sometimes. Common sense and logic do not exist! I can't help but wonder about it sometimes. It's probably because of the way they are taught in schools. They aren't taught to think but only to memorize.

Eziekial wrote:Aren't dogs considered the same species? Pretty large variety in that group no? Can they all interbreed?

Yeah, although a chihuahua bitch impregnated by a Great Dane may be in danger of exploding. There's a question of... geometry involved too, so the old turkey baster might be needed.


--R.

That's the thing Zeek

all humans are the same species

there's not enough difference in the genetic code to call them anything different

there is a theory tho, that what we are is an amalgamtion of 4 ancient races that ended up similar enough to breed together

the only real remnant of that is the different blood types


that's really just kind of a wild theory

Interesting. As a species, we "should" be evolving all the time, no? Maybe not in a very discernable way, but the process never stops does it? Could we argue that some distinctions may exist within our species?

I know this is not PC but it's still interesting as long as we don't sling mud.

Rust wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

There's a fair amount of conversation about what actually determines different "races" of human

Skin colour really doesn't enter the picture much, as it's really just a regional adaptation to the amount of sun a culture gets

A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Ah, afraid to address this aspect of evolution. Rather shy of the racism stigma attached to it, are we? The human race, just like many other species, has branched off into sub groups. In broad terms, which sub group of humans is the most inferior, from an evolutionary point of view of course?

Human 'subgroups' are fully capable of interbreeding, in fact we do it all the time (being a rather randy bunch of primates). In terms of 'inferior', I suspect you would do rather badly dropped into either Baffin Island or the Kalahari Desert. 'Inferior' isn't a term used in evolution - it's 'fitness'.

Of course, you're just *playing* at being an idiot to score cheap debating points, aren't you? Anyone stupid enough to think there are 'inferior' groups of humans should be on WebTV or off having their white robe (with the extra embroidery and the nice pointy cap) cleaned.

Maybe if you were to come up with a set of criteria to judge who was 'inferior' we could see your particular ideological biases?

--R.

And Free Speech is once again KO'd by Political Correctness!

Eziekial wrote:Interesting. As a species, we "should" be evolving all the time, no? Maybe not in a very discernable way, but the process never stops does it? Could we argue that some distinctions may exist within our species?

I know this is not PC but it's still interesting as long as we don't sling mud.

Sure you'll see some differentiation within a species, that's what keeps the success, and potential future success of a species going

The main reason you don't see more change, is we actually combat the situations that would affect natural selection

Things like allergies, susceptablitiy to certain diseases (asthma, heart disease, MS, etc etc etc) are traits you'd normally like to cull out of a species, but man doesn't deal well with being told that weaker genetic stock isn't allowed to breed

but evolving really doesn't necessarily equate to people being bigger/stronger/faster

It generally refers to having some sort of genetic adaptation/mutation that allows them to survive something, that others wouldn't

Like say 50% of all humans are completely resistant to aids

once the rest of the population was decimated by aids, and all that was left was those resistant to it, aids would poof, and cease to be a problem

that's how evolution works, in small steps

man is now an aids proof animal

Tikker wrote:A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Would that mean if you're blood type is different than your mother's, you are a different species than she is?

If I'm not mistaken, there's something close to a dozen or more blood types for dogs, but dogs of the same breed can have different blood types. And dogs of different breeds can have the exact same blood type as dogs of other breeds. Plus there's a universal blood type, too.

With cats there are only 3.

It would be interesting to see what different animals share the same blood types. Could one type of dolphin's blood be used in certain elephants, for example? There's bound to be some interesting combinations out there.

Wrath Child wrote:

Tikker wrote:A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Would that mean if you're blood type is different than your mother's, you are a different species than she is?

If I'm not mistaken, there's something close to a dozen or more blood types for dogs, but dogs of the same breed can have different blood types. And dogs of different breeds can have the exact same blood type as dogs of other breeds. Plus there's a universal blood type, too.

With cats there are only 3.

It would be interesting to see what different animals share the same blood types. Could one type of dolphin's blood be used in certain elephants, for example? There's bound to be some interesting combinations out there.

you're not going to get a diff't species anywhere in the human genome

there isn't enough differentiation of genetics for that

different race != different species

In different parts of the world, the fraction of individuals with blood type A, B, O, or AB differs.

The frequency with which blood types are observed is determined by the frequency with which the three alleles of the ABO gene are found in different parts of the world (allele frequency). Variation in the allele frequency at the ABO gene reflects the social tendency of populations to marry and reproduce within a national, regional, or ethnic group.

As people throughout the world intermingle to a greater extent, the distribution of the different blood types will become more uniform throughout the world.

So if we didn't have mudfish, blacks would eventually subcomb to sickle cell enemia?

Eziekial wrote:So if we didn't have mudfish, blacks would eventually subcomb to sickle cell enemia?

I'm not sure that succumb is the right word... sickle cell anemia isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Tikker wrote:

Wrath Child wrote:

Rust wrote:Yeah, he doesn't hate gays, they're just 'defective'.

Run the clock back a few decades, and picture him saying 'I don't hate niggers, they're just an inferior race.'
Ignorance or malice, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes, isn't it?

From an evolutionary point of view, what exactly is wrong with that statement? Is it not true? Or are you going to add a dash of MLK and declare that all men are created equal?

If you believe in evolution, there is no rational or logical way you can say that all races of humans are equal.

There's a fair amount of conversation about what actually determines different "races" of human

Skin colour really doesn't enter the picture much, as it's really just a regional adaptation to the amount of sun a culture gets

A lot of the thinking goes back to the different blood types, and how those might actually be a good indication of the differentiation of race

Ah, afraid to address this aspect of evolution. Rather shy of the racism stigma attached to it, are we? The human race, just like many other species, has branched off into sub groups. In broad terms, which sub group of humans is the most inferior, from an evolutionary point of view of course?

Human 'subgroups' are fully capable of interbreeding, in fact we do it all the time (being a rather randy bunch of primates). In terms of 'inferior', I suspect you would do rather badly dropped into either Baffin Island or the Kalahari Desert. 'Inferior' isn't a term used in evolution - it's 'fitness'.

Of course, you're just *playing* at being an idiot to score cheap debating points, aren't you? Anyone stupid enough to think there are 'inferior' groups of humans should be on WebTV or off having their white robe (with the extra embroidery and the nice pointy cap) cleaned.

Maybe if you were to come up with a set of criteria to judge who was 'inferior' we could see your particular ideological biases?

--R.

And Free Speech is once again KO'd by Political Correctness!

Goodness no, feel free to spout off ignorantly. Not like anyone here could stop you in any event.

In any event, if you want to claim a group is 'inferior', come up with some objective criteria.

--R.

xaoshaen wrote:

Eziekial wrote:So if we didn't have mudfish, blacks would eventually subcomb to sickle cell enemia?

I'm not sure that succumb is the right word... sickle cell anemia isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Well it's homozygous lethal, isn't it? And heterozygous you still get sick. But you survive malaria better. So it's a survival trait in populations where malaria is endemic.

--R.