|
Post by kwalka on Jan 16, 2006 23:00:50 GMT -5
I'm new here, but I'm curious - does every thread on this board degenerate into name calling, ad hominem attacks, and people taking it as their personal duty to defend their entire race instead of objectively examining evidence?
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 16, 2006 23:25:57 GMT -5
First let us establish if you believe race = culture. Once thats cleared that up we can continue on with the discussion properly. Refering to foreign ethnic groups as "alien races"gives me the inclination you have basically equated race with culture. OK, now we're on to something. Race = Culture is one extreme and Race <> Culture is the other extreme of the argument. My opinion is that Race and Culture are correlated, but not to either extremes.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 16, 2006 23:26:41 GMT -5
I'm new here, but I'm curious - does every thread on this board degenerate into name calling, ad hominem attacks, and people taking it as their personal duty to defend their entire race instead of objectively examining evidence? Unfortunately, yes.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 17, 2006 16:33:42 GMT -5
Perhaps I have mistaken you in the past, maybe you don't think Egypt was one race or the other and that was my error. However on a side note I still fail to understand how somehow someone who is "caucasoid" can "lay claim" and feel like their apart of the glories of ancient egypt or greece, or any other ancient civilisation because of some vague sense of racial unity and continuation.
And so we come to a new challenge:
1. If you say that there is a connection or correlation "spiritual" or whatever in regards to race (i.e. physical appearance) and culture, prove it. Thereby dis-proving the conventional wisdom of the last 3,000 years of human thought regarding the matter.
This should'nt prove to be too difficult for you I'm sure, seeing as you seem to be reassured as to your claims.
What in gods name are you talking about sir? I was simply laying out, piece by piece what I had interpreted you to say, by your own logic.
If you, by your own implyed intentions, want this to continue to be a civil discussion then I suggest you dispense with the petty insults and personal attacks, and I will do so in accord.
You fail to have seen the point. I was separating "The West" from the "The World" for they are two different things. Then I gave an example of one african culture's "World" contributions as opposed to a "Western" one. For whatever reason, it appears you cannot see the distinction. They are two different cultural spheres that have only recently merged as a result of globalisation.
Maybe you've been living under a rock (or simply at your computer screen) for the last half century or so, seeing as the word has long since ceased common usage. For obvious reasons of which you are oblivous to.
Prove it. Give me an up-to-date peer-reviewed study on the matter from a credible source. Otherwise, conventional wisdom (and everyday observation) prevails.
LOL the idea itself just silly, this non-sense of "racial character".
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 18, 2006 12:23:02 GMT -5
Prove it. Give me an up-to-date peer-reviewed study on the matter from a credible source. Otherwise, conventional wisdom (and everyday observation) prevails. LOL the idea itself just silly, this non-sense of "racial character". If I understand your comment here correctly, I think you believe the one extreme end of the argument that Culture does not equal Race. The other extreme end of the argument would be Culture = Race or an absolute positive correlation of Race and Culture. I do not take either extreme ends of the argument. I believe there is some correlation between the racial character of a population and its culture. There are, of course, other factors such as fauna, location, weather, climate, etc. Since I don't take either extreme positions and you take the one extreme position of absolutely no correlation between race and culture, it is you who must prove your point. So do it.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 18, 2006 12:30:34 GMT -5
You fail to have seen the point. I was separating "The West" from the "The World" for they are two different things. Then I gave an example of one african culture's "World" contributions as opposed to a "Western" one. For whatever reason, it appears you cannot see the distinction. They are two different cultural spheres that have only recently merged as a result of globalisation. No, I understood your point. I just don't think it's credible nor do I think it's important. You feel it is important to make those distinctions and seperations because those "isolated" examples of "accomplishments" or "contributions" don't have any real value in the present world, especially in the technologically and industrially advanced part of the world.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 18, 2006 12:46:50 GMT -5
What in gods name are you talking about sir? I was simply laying out, piece by piece what I had interpreted you to say, by your own logic. If you, by your own implyed intentions, want this to continue to be a civil discussion then I suggest you dispense with the petty insults and personal attacks, and I will do so in accord. What I'm talking about is basic good language skills. If I say A and B implies C to a make point, don't respond with something stupid like "prove A." That shows a lack of intelligence on your part. Isolating the antecedent from a conditional and using it to make an isolated point shows a lack of basic language skills. A and B don't have to be true, however in order for C to be true, A and B must be true. Get it?
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 18, 2006 12:52:34 GMT -5
Perhaps I have mistaken you in the past, maybe you don't think Egypt was one race or the other and that was my error. However on a side note I still fail to understand how somehow someone who is "caucasoid" can "lay claim" and feel like their apart of the glories of ancient egypt or greece, or any other ancient civilisation because of some vague sense of racial unity and continuation. And so we come to a new challenge: 1. If you say that there is a connection or correlation "spiritual" or whatever in regards to race (i.e. physical appearance) and culture, prove it. Thereby dis-proving the conventional wisdom of the last 3,000 years of human thought regarding the matter. This should'nt prove to be too difficult for you I'm sure, seeing as you seem to be reassured as to your claims. Firstly, I said caucasian, not caucasoid. Secondly, regarding the latter part of your statement. I say:
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 18, 2006 15:44:55 GMT -5
So basically, after all of this, we have gotten abosolutely nowhere. What was the argument sir? Either you've cooled down your rhetoric or you've been purposely flip-flopping so as to make me seem as if I'm "making things up". 1. This was possibly a waste of time and nothing more than a typing exercise. 2. Refine your arguments and be coherent and clear in your presentation. I certainly mistook you for a radical caucasoid racial collectivist, yet your nothing more it seems than moderate internet speculator.
|
|
mmmkay
Full Member
Internet Philosophiser, Leftist Hero
Posts: 127
|
Post by mmmkay on Jan 18, 2006 16:00:17 GMT -5
You implyed the same thing, whether or not you were using the exact terminology. But who knows? I suppose you'll just deny it and continue on as you were. But why else would you make the connection between egyptians and "caucasians" refering to a hypothetical racial continuation and unity? That's basically the "caucasoid" philosophy in a nutshell. The same stuff that causes europeans to associate themselves in the same family as arabs.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 18, 2006 18:21:28 GMT -5
So basically, after all of this, we have gotten abosolutely nowhere. What was the argument sir? Either you've cooled down your rhetoric or you've been purposely flip-flopping so as to make me seem as if I'm "making things up". 1. This was possibly a waste of time and nothing more than a typing exercise. 2. Refine your arguments and be coherent and clear in your presentation. I certainly mistook you for a radical caucasoid racial collectivist, yet your nothing more it seems than moderate internet speculator. For me, nothing's changed. I just had to keep explaining a few things over and over again with you because you seem to be rather dim upstairs.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Jan 18, 2006 18:23:46 GMT -5
You implyed the same thing, whether or not you were using the exact terminology. But who knows? I suppose you'll just deny it and continue on as you were. But why else would you make the connection between egyptians and "caucasians" refering to a hypothetical racial continuation and unity? That's basically the "caucasoid" philosophy in a nutshell. The same stuff that causes europeans to associate themselves in the same family as arabs. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are wrong. I did not imply it. You inferred it. I have no control over other people's inferences.
|
|