Racist or not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2013, 08:53 AM
Racist or not?
(18-10-2013 10:18 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 10:07 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Some peole are attracted to people that are different , others are attracted to people who are alike.
My point is that I dont see that such attractions have anything to do with evolution.
Of course we are generally only attracted to people in the same species. But within the species
it would not be good for survival to date within a small gene pool. So it seems counterintuitive that
evolution would make people restrict themselves to a smaller gene pool.

It would be an interesting experiment to have a bunch of white and black rabbits, and see whether
the white rabbits only fuck other white rabbits. My guess is that they would be completely indiscriminate.

It is an evolutionary advantage if you go back to our ancestors. Once upon a time our ancestors didn't have forward-facing eyes. When got forward facing eyes we got binocular vision, but this came at a price. We didn't have the capacity to see as much, it was more difficult to detect the predator that wanted to eat us. We become more social, forming groups to supplement our difficulty to see predators approaching. We relied on these groups. They helped us stay safe from other predators. This includes those other cavemen across the stream that wanted our hunting territory, our food, our furs, our dwellings. The 'others' were dangerous. Hence the 'like attracts like' quality. That's the essential theory anyhow. You can read from people more knowledgeable than me if you are interested, all you need is a computer connected to the internet, and you have that.

social behavior has an evolutionary component to it. But what does that have to do with "like attract like".
The cavemen across the stream looked the same. They are just separated by geographical and social structure.
Do you haveany proof that the cavemen on one side of the stream were not attracted to the cavewomen
on the other side?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 09:41 AM
RE: Racist or not?
I wasn't referring to a specific incident Dodgy

Like attract like refers to more than physical likeness, but physical traits are a factor. Those that look different than you are different. They are a potential threat. I ain't saying that ancient man exclusively fucked those in his own tribe. As a matter of fact, we have proof of the opposite, but like attracts like is an evolutionary factor whether it is palatable to you or not.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Racist or not?
(18-10-2013 01:57 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As I have mentioned earlier, there is a evolutionary compulsion to be attracted to those more like us than those more different than us.

I'm not a scientist nor will I pretend to be one. I have a rudimentary understanding of evolution. It is this understanding I'll be drawing my response from.

I believe that at the core an organism favours genetic variety. This is beneficial as this leads to a larger gene pool which has the concomitant effect of producing stronger organisms. In a nut shell, genetic variety. I think that it is a social construct created through conformity that sees us not easily "cross pollinating", not necessarily that we are more attracted to those similar.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 04:58 AM
RE: Racist or not?
(18-10-2013 01:57 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  To really get at the truth of the matter we must first define "race". If we stick with the traditional western definition....Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid which is largely based on skin color and other physical characteristics, vice what we see race based on in places like South America and parts of of Asia, then yes, it is racist. A person is judging based on these racial qualities. However, politically speaking, I think it is okay.
If by political, you mean an attraction to certain phenotypes, that is not intended to harm others who don't have those phenotypes, yeah I agree. However many, many people will not be comfortable with this. And that's the ultimate point here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 05:15 AM
RE: Racist or not?
(18-10-2013 10:07 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 08:18 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Where's the evidence that opposites attract?

Some peole are attracted to people that are different , others are attracted to people who are alike.
My point is that I dont see that such attractions have anything to do with evolution.
Of course we are generally only attracted to people in the same species. But within the species
it would not be good for survival to date within a small gene pool. So it seems counterintuitive that
evolution would make people restrict themselves to a smaller gene pool.

It would be an interesting experiment to have a bunch of white and black rabbits, and see whether
the white rabbits only fuck other white rabbits. My guess is that they would be completely indiscriminate.
Well, "White" and "Black" rabbits are descriptions of the fur, their skin is the same color, which is white - by human labeling .

On topic, evolution does not have any goal whatsoever, it doesn't make any organism do anything that furthers the course of evolution, so to speak.

Small gene pools are dangerous, evolution wise, but the definition of a small gene pool is hard to categorize. The practice of Endogamy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogamy is widespread in some populations like Orthodox Jews, Jehovah's Witneses, Kurds, but the amount of genetic diversity in these groups in wide enough to keep them fairly healthy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: Racist or not?
(20-10-2013 05:15 AM)Juv Wrote:  Small gene pools are dangerous, evolution wise,.

I've always hypothesised that a small group of pre humans may have been isolated and inbreed a mutant missinglink . Forced Inbreeding in dogs radically altered them in a short time span.
Without that event I could be tapping nuts on a rock instead of this screen.
Small genepool breeding may be essential to macro evolution. (Probably a thousand monsters and still births for every positive mutation)

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 06:28 AM
RE: Racist or not?
Skin colour doesn't really count as genetic diversity. Skin colour is, if I remember correctly, something like .005 percent of what makes two people genetically different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 08:41 AM
RE: Racist or not?
Sleep with whoever you want...

There are so many cultural differences, etc that it is perfectly understandable and IMO not-racist to date whoever you like and not date whoever you like. I've met some really attractive African women but most not so much... It has as much to do with dress and fashion as physical appearance...but yeah for the record I like slender 'cute' women and generally that means Anglo's and Asians.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: Racist or not?
(21-10-2013 06:28 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Skin colour doesn't really count as genetic diversity. Skin colour is, if I remember correctly, something like .005 percent of what makes two people genetically different.

Disagree. White people are more susceptible to skin cancer and sun burn than black people. The melanin count in black skin protects the skin from the evil sun.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 09:47 AM
RE: Racist or not?
(21-10-2013 09:21 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  
(21-10-2013 06:28 AM)Colourcraze Wrote:  Skin colour doesn't really count as genetic diversity. Skin colour is, if I remember correctly, something like .005 percent of what makes two people genetically different.

Disagree. White people are more susceptible to skin cancer and sun burn than black people. The melanin count in black skin protects the skin from the evil sun.

You disagree with genetics?

Even though yes, whities like me get burned easily, skin colour still only counts for a fraction of a percent of what makes me different from anybody else who's darker than me. Plus, thanks to the invention of sunblock, I'm even more protected! And I would be fine if I lived in an area where my pale skin first evolved, because my body would get enough sun to make vitamin D, where I would have the skin advantage over black people.

But my point is, there are other ways in which humans are genetically diverse which account for a much higher percentage of difference than skin colour alone. In the grand scheme of things, skin colour doesn't matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: