Total Posts:237|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Racism is moral

Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.

Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.

Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).

Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.

Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).

Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).

Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).

Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.
Anonymous
10/6/2017 11:10:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a profoundly flawed, weak, incoherent argument.
Anonymous
10/6/2017 11:12:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like, everything that could be wrong with this argument is wrong with this argument. Even calling it an "argument" seems a reach.
Anonymous
10/6/2017 11:19:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:12:57 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Worthwhile counter-arguments and evidence only, please.

Don't waste everyone's time with throw-away, one-lined opinions.

No point. Your OP is incoherent, unstructured, illogical, and misguided. It's easily dismissed.

It would be unreasonable for you to expect people to take this kind of nonsense seriously. If you're going to make an argument about the morality of racism, you have to define some kind of criteria for what makes something moral, rather than simply defining what morality is.

Basically, none of the so-called conclusions you have flow from your premises. Your premises are ill founded. It's.... not even the sort of thing that a reasonable discussion can be had about. That's how poorly articulated your OP is.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2017 11:29:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:19:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:12:57 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Worthwhile counter-arguments and evidence only, please.

Don't waste everyone's time with throw-away, one-lined opinions.

No point. Your OP is incoherent, unstructured, illogical, and misguided. It's easily dismissed.

That's your opinion.


It would be unreasonable for you to expect people to take this kind of nonsense seriously. If you're going to make an argument about the morality of racism, you have to define some kind of criteria for what makes something moral

That was done within the argument:

"Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too."

Shows how much you read...

rather than simply defining what morality is.

Basically, none of the so-called conclusions you have flow from your premises.

Opinion.

Your premises are ill founded.

Opinion.

It's.... not even the sort of thing that a reasonable discussion can be had about. That's how poorly articulated your OP is.

Aaaaaand opinion.

If all you're going to do is state your opinion, I think i am best served by ignoring you.
Anonymous
10/6/2017 11:29:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:29:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:19:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:12:57 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Worthwhile counter-arguments and evidence only, please.

Don't waste everyone's time with throw-away, one-lined opinions.

No point. Your OP is incoherent, unstructured, illogical, and misguided. It's easily dismissed.

That's your opinion.


It would be unreasonable for you to expect people to take this kind of nonsense seriously. If you're going to make an argument about the morality of racism, you have to define some kind of criteria for what makes something moral

That was done within the argument:

"Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too."

Shows how much you read...

rather than simply defining what morality is.

Basically, none of the so-called conclusions you have flow from your premises.

Opinion.

Your premises are ill founded.

Opinion.

It's.... not even the sort of thing that a reasonable discussion can be had about. That's how poorly articulated your OP is.

Aaaaaand opinion.

If all you're going to do is state your opinion, I think i am best served by ignoring you.

What do you think the word "opinion" means?
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2017 11:32:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.

I understand your argument a little more so than the other user but it is flawed a bit. Competition bw races is expected and moral... when it is healthy competition. But... to "hate" a person bc they are not the same race you are actually would even detrimental to our evolution. We may have had competition, but ultimately humans have evolved more and more tolerant of other races to advance trade and so forth.

Racism cannot be moral or helpful to our evolution bc it is an illogical and ignorant stance. It looks down on a race just bc they are different. This can never be moral or logical. I can see how competition bw races would make sense in your argument, but unless you are defining racism much different than what it is, no, racism isn't moral.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2017 11:33:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:29:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:29:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:19:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:12:57 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Worthwhile counter-arguments and evidence only, please.

Don't waste everyone's time with throw-away, one-lined opinions.

No point. Your OP is incoherent, unstructured, illogical, and misguided. It's easily dismissed.

That's your opinion.


It would be unreasonable for you to expect people to take this kind of nonsense seriously. If you're going to make an argument about the morality of racism, you have to define some kind of criteria for what makes something moral

That was done within the argument:

"Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too."

Shows how much you read...

rather than simply defining what morality is.

Basically, none of the so-called conclusions you have flow from your premises.

Opinion.

Your premises are ill founded.

Opinion.

It's.... not even the sort of thing that a reasonable discussion can be had about. That's how poorly articulated your OP is.

Aaaaaand opinion.

If all you're going to do is state your opinion, I think i am best served by ignoring you.

What do you think the word "opinion" means?

Statements without evidence or reasoning.

For example:

"Your OP is incoherent, unstructured, illogical, and misguided. It's easily dismissed."

None of what you wrote here was coupled with evidence, let along reasoning.

Why do I even have to explain this to you? It's a reasonable assumption that by nearly 43,000 posts of intellectual discussion, you would recognise that what you wrote was an opinion.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2017 11:44:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:32:23 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.

I understand your argument a little more so than the other user

Well that's not hard. There's proof that he didn't even bother to read it.

but it is flawed a bit. Competition bw races is expected and moral... when it is healthy competition. But... to "hate" a person bc they are not the same race you are actually would even detrimental to our evolution. We may have had competition, but ultimately humans have evolved more and more tolerant of other races to advance trade and so forth.

Sure. If advancing trade serves the interest of a racial group, then pretending to tolerate other races is beneficial.

But the morality, at least how I'd defended it here, comes from actions which serve your ethnic group. Tolerance, if it were to be moral, would only come as a by-product of that. That distinction is paramount.


Racism cannot be moral or helpful to our evolution bc it is an illogical and ignorant stance. It looks down on a race just bc they are different.

Nope, that is not what I argued.

This can never be moral or logical. I can see how competition bw races would make sense in your argument, but unless you are defining racism much different than what it is, no, racism isn't moral.

I've provided extensive reasoning as to why racism is moral. What you wrote here is an opinion, much like the mess YYW has already left here. Let's help to keep DDO clean.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2017 11:51:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:44:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:32:23 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.

I understand your argument a little more so than the other user

Well that's not hard. There's proof that he didn't even bother to read it.

Yeah well, i'd rather at least try to understand a novel argument even if i don't agree at first glance.

but it is flawed a bit. Competition bw races is expected and moral... when it is healthy competition. But... to "hate" a person bc they are not the same race you are actually would even detrimental to our evolution. We may have had competition, but ultimately humans have evolved more and more tolerant of other races to advance trade and so forth.

Sure. If advancing trade serves the interest of a racial group, then pretending to tolerate other races is beneficial.

But the morality, at least how I'd defended it here, comes from actions which serve your ethnic group. Tolerance, if it were to be moral, would only come as a by-product of that. That distinction is paramount.

Yes... i would agree that it was mostly tolerance. However, throwing the word racism into the mix adds an illogical "hate" element to it that i don't think is inherently a go-to emotion.

Racism cannot be moral or helpful to our evolution bc it is an illogical and ignorant stance. It looks down on a race just bc they are different.

Nope, that is not what I argued.

This can never be moral or logical. I can see how competition bw races would make sense in your argument, but unless you are defining racism much different than what it is, no, racism isn't moral.

I've provided extensive reasoning as to why racism is moral. What you wrote here is an opinion, much like the mess YYW has already left here. Let's help to keep DDO clean.

Well, before i can go past an opinion, how do you define racism?

I may be defining it differently, for i view it as "hate." Furthermore, illogical hate based solely off observation without any reason other than difference.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
Anonymous
10/6/2017 11:56:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:33:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:29:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:29:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:19:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:12:57 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Worthwhile counter-arguments and evidence only, please.

Don't waste everyone's time with throw-away, one-lined opinions.

No point. Your OP is incoherent, unstructured, illogical, and misguided. It's easily dismissed.

That's your opinion.


It would be unreasonable for you to expect people to take this kind of nonsense seriously. If you're going to make an argument about the morality of racism, you have to define some kind of criteria for what makes something moral

That was done within the argument:

"Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too."

Shows how much you read...

rather than simply defining what morality is.

Basically, none of the so-called conclusions you have flow from your premises.

Opinion.

Your premises are ill founded.

Opinion.

It's.... not even the sort of thing that a reasonable discussion can be had about. That's how poorly articulated your OP is.

Aaaaaand opinion.

If all you're going to do is state your opinion, I think i am best served by ignoring you.

What do you think the word "opinion" means?

Statements without evidence or reasoning.

You don't understand the meaning of that word.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:02:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:56:30 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:33:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:29:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:29:08 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:19:24 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:12:57 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Worthwhile counter-arguments and evidence only, please.

Don't waste everyone's time with throw-away, one-lined opinions.

No point. Your OP is incoherent, unstructured, illogical, and misguided. It's easily dismissed.

That's your opinion.


It would be unreasonable for you to expect people to take this kind of nonsense seriously. If you're going to make an argument about the morality of racism, you have to define some kind of criteria for what makes something moral

That was done within the argument:

"Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too."

Shows how much you read...

rather than simply defining what morality is.

Basically, none of the so-called conclusions you have flow from your premises.

Opinion.

Your premises are ill founded.

Opinion.

It's.... not even the sort of thing that a reasonable discussion can be had about. That's how poorly articulated your OP is.

Aaaaaand opinion.

If all you're going to do is state your opinion, I think i am best served by ignoring you.

What do you think the word "opinion" means?

Statements without evidence or reasoning.

You don't understand the meaning of that word.

More opinion, again without reasoning or evidence (and you deleted my explanation -- a weird move).

But don't take my word for it. I'll let the fair-minded audience decide whether what I'm saying is true: that anything I've called an opinion is, in fact, an opinion.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:06:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:51:12 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:44:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:32:23 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.

I understand your argument a little more so than the other user

Well that's not hard. There's proof that he didn't even bother to read it.

Yeah well, i'd rather at least try to understand a novel argument even if i don't agree at first glance.

Thank you for being a reasonable person :)


but it is flawed a bit. Competition bw races is expected and moral... when it is healthy competition. But... to "hate" a person bc they are not the same race you are actually would even detrimental to our evolution. We may have had competition, but ultimately humans have evolved more and more tolerant of other races to advance trade and so forth.

Sure. If advancing trade serves the interest of a racial group, then pretending to tolerate other races is beneficial.

But the morality, at least how I'd defended it here, comes from actions which serve your ethnic group. Tolerance, if it were to be moral, would only come as a by-product of that. That distinction is paramount.

Yes... i would agree that it was mostly tolerance. However, throwing the word racism into the mix adds an illogical "hate" element to it that i don't think is inherently a go-to emotion.

Why does racism automatically imply hatred?


Racism cannot be moral or helpful to our evolution bc it is an illogical and ignorant stance. It looks down on a race just bc they are different.

Nope, that is not what I argued.

This can never be moral or logical. I can see how competition bw races would make sense in your argument, but unless you are defining racism much different than what it is, no, racism isn't moral.

I've provided extensive reasoning as to why racism is moral. What you wrote here is an opinion, much like the mess YYW has already left here. Let's help to keep DDO clean.

Well, before i can go past an opinion, how do you define racism?

It's defined within my Op.


I may be defining it differently, for i view it as "hate."

Okay, but how do you defend such a definition?

Again, why does racism imply hate?

Furthermore, illogical hate based solely off observation without any reason other than difference.

I've given an extensive argument as to why it makes sense to be racist. Through that argument, I think I show that racism doesn't have to be limited to hating based on difference. There are evolutionary advantages to racism, and those advantages can be argued to be moral (as is seen in my Op).
Devilry
Posts: 5,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:12:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I still figure all Australians have just a sort of basic human and aggravated fear of the Chinese.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:46:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 12:06:15 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:51:12 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:44:16 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:32:23 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.

I understand your argument a little more so than the other user

Well that's not hard. There's proof that he didn't even bother to read it.

Yeah well, i'd rather at least try to understand a novel argument even if i don't agree at first glance.

Thank you for being a reasonable person :)


but it is flawed a bit. Competition bw races is expected and moral... when it is healthy competition. But... to "hate" a person bc they are not the same race you are actually would even detrimental to our evolution. We may have had competition, but ultimately humans have evolved more and more tolerant of other races to advance trade and so forth.

Sure. If advancing trade serves the interest of a racial group, then pretending to tolerate other races is beneficial.

But the morality, at least how I'd defended it here, comes from actions which serve your ethnic group. Tolerance, if it were to be moral, would only come as a by-product of that. That distinction is paramount.

Yes... i would agree that it was mostly tolerance. However, throwing the word racism into the mix adds an illogical "hate" element to it that i don't think is inherently a go-to emotion.

Why does racism automatically imply hatred?

I guess i am defining it off of my observation of the word. People that are racist seem to be hateful. All cases that i have seen of it comes from someone that "hates" another race bc they are different. I know majority doesn't equal correlation, it is just how i have come to view the word. I'm blindly saying this, but i feel many people define it this way.

I am not catching where you are defining it, unless you are referring to your broader definition of races. In that i agree to a point, competition and looking out for your race is moral. There is nothing wrong there. But even too much of that is a detriment to your own race. Again however, this is where i start defining racism with hate... "i won't even trade with them bc they are animals" type of thinking.

So... i get what you are saying in your broader sense of the word. There is nothing morally wrong with looking out for your own race, but to someone like me, growing up in a diverse place, many people of other races are my race now. I don't look at color or culture anymore bc i have had friends in all places and have noticed, they aren't much different than me. But... there are people that do. "I wont hang out with asians bc X" "i don't like black people's culture" some ignorant and hateful things i have heard... bc in the end of the day... have they hung our with Asians? Have they met black families? They will quickly realize they aren't much different.

But... i agree on your point in the bigger picture. Yeah... i don't like North Korea bc i don't like their government so i would be cautious if i dealt with them in something like a business transaction. My caution would come from viewing their culture as more hostile or different... but it is less the people and more the countries ideologies. In that sense, being "racist" would be moral.

So you can see how i would agree and disagree with your argument, and i think it really comes down to how we define the word. I'm sure you would agree the way i define it isn't moral.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
FourTrouble
Posts: 16,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 3:16:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Evolution doesn't have a "perspective" or "goal," it just is. So your argument never gets past the first premise. Well done, Zarro.

Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.
If you'd like a vote on your debate, please send me a link. I'll do my best to offer a sufficient RFD in your favor.

Also: If you'd like to vote bomb a debate and need help crafting a sufficient RFD, let me know.
Anonymous
10/7/2017 3:56:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 3:16:37 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Evolution doesn't have a "perspective" or "goal," it just is. So your argument never gets past the first premise. Well done, Zarro.

I tossed around the idea of going, line by line through this bit of horse sh!t. Then I thought, nah. The nah's have it.
Anonymous
10/7/2017 3:58:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Every thread she writes is so irrational and misguided, although to attempt to explain why would be in vain because she has no interest in developing any writing or analytical ability.

Very dim. Equally hopeless. So bad.
Zarroette
Posts: 4,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 4:36:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 3:16:37 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Evolution doesn't have a "perspective" or "goal," it just is. So your argument never gets past the first premise. Well done, Zarro.

Does evolution function in accordance to some meaning?

Yes.

Does that meaning cause there to be an ideal to strive towards?

Yes.

Then it has a goal.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.
Anonymous
10/7/2017 5:06:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 4:36:14 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 10/7/2017 3:16:37 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Evolution doesn't have a "perspective" or "goal," it just is. So your argument never gets past the first premise. Well done, Zarro.

Does evolution function in accordance to some meaning?

Yes.

Does that meaning cause there to be an ideal to strive towards?

Yes.

Then it has a goal.

Wrong.
triangle.128k
Posts: 5,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 5:19:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.
Evolution simply describes how things happen, it does not answer the question as to why we are here or give a real purpose of life. Many people give life their own purpose, and/or may turn to religion for a purpose in life. The idea of the only goals of humans to be reproduction and survival is outdated given the complexities of modern society.

Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).
The existence of race does not have to support the idea of racism as a moral construct.

Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).
Literally everything is classified as racist by a group of SJW professors or "scientists." Babies are quite unaware of the larger world, and have underdeveloped minds. The idea of them being any sort of "ist" is utterly ridiculous. Most likely, they do not understand the idea of race.

Search up "X is racist," and anything will show up.

"Computers are racist"
https://newrepublic.com...

"Books are racist"
https://www.usatoday.com...

"Math is racist"
https://www.theatlantic.com...


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).
1. This has compared North American cities to lower level populations. It is quite evident that massive populations of cities will have less trust and social cohesion than a smaller town where people know who their neighbors are, and where they live.

2. Racially/ethnically diverse communities tend to be more multicultural, which could be much more of a reason.

It seems as if it is implied that racism is natural as different races being competitors. However, the very idea of racism is merely a social construct. If the Roman Empire - a quite ethnically/racially diverse empire - existed without recorded instances of racism, then racism is not natural but is a construct of society or a conclusion made on actual biological instincts such as pattern recognition.


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.
OTempora
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:22:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 3:16:37 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Evolution doesn't have a "perspective" or "goal," it just is. So your argument never gets past the first premise. Well done, Zarro.

If A regularly causes B, you can say that A is inherently directed at B. Nobody is saying there's any sort of conscious "goal." From a metaphysical perspective, it simply makes sense to say that certain things regularly bring about something else.

Humans are naturally directed towards reproduction and survival. It's a driving motivator in many humans decisions. So according to the above definition, I think we can say that humans are causally directed towards pursuing or at least desiring reproduction and survival.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.
#NoLoveForZarrothett
OTempora
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:25:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 3:16:37 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Evolution doesn't have a "perspective" or "goal," it just is. So your argument never gets past the first premise. Well done, Zarro.

I should also note that denying final causality as proposed by Aristotle seems to undermine the ability to make sense of any sort of causal relationship altogether. Though I rather doubt you'd want to do that.


Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.
#NoLoveForZarrothett
OTempora
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think this argument is sound, likely not even valid, but I'll explain why later.
#NoLoveForZarrothett
Emilrose
Posts: 6,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 12:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can easily overturn this argument from another biological perspective though; and that is that we share the same internal biology with other races, and that on the basis of that, we are all equal.

Evolution teaches us that we first evolved in Africa, and that we can trace our genetics to a variety of different species (up to 20 in fact) and that we share our common ancestor(s) with apes.

So, even if one is arguing that racism is moral in the evolutionary sense, it is it not *logical*, given that we belong to same species. After all, most of the hominoid groups that directly contributed to our pathway to life all died-out, bar one, which is how we developed and became what we are now.

In terms of the desire to maintain and prolong ones own (ethnic) identity, well, this makes sense to some degree; most of us can relate more to our own racial group, for reasons that vary from ethnic + social background to psychology. However, I wouldn't say that this equates to racism. One doesn't have to harbor feelings of 'hate' towards another race in order to not want to mix their genes or pro-create with them.
Unstobbaple
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 1:09:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 3:16:37 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Premise 1: From an evolutionary perspective, the primary goals of livings things is reproduction and survival.

Evolution doesn't have a "perspective" or "goal," it just is. So your argument never gets past the first premise. Well done, Zarro.

XD; destroyed.

Premise 2: Humans are a by-product of evolution.


Conclusion 1: It is then logical to conclude that human behaviour, to a large degree, is also a product of evolution. Furthermore, it can be said that human behaviour is geared towards these primary goals.


Premise 3: Morality is defined as, "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...).


Argument 1: If humans and their behaviour are produced through evolution, and fundamental human behaviour is designed to ensure survival and reproduction, what is considered "right", "wrong", "good" or "bad" behaviour, must be derived from the same evolutionary source, and therefore serve the primary goals.


Conclusion 2: Any behaviour, of which can be classified as morally "good", must be evolutionarily favourable in some way. Vice versa is true, too.


Argument 2
: Evolutionary pressures, across the world, have resulted in physically distinct and genetically distinguishable populations, or what is commonly referred to: race. Here's a very quick, brief example of racial difference: (http://www.debate.org...).


Argument 3: Races view each other as out-groups and competition. This phenomenon has been detected in children, of which aren't subject to the whims of ideology and social influence, hence are excellent candidates to test for racism (https://media.utoronto.ca...).


Argument 4: Ethnically diverse communities have lower levels of trust and cohesion in inhabitants, when compared with ethnically homogeneous communities (http://vancouversun.com...).


Grand Conclusion: Since there are distinct human races, and these races are evolutionary competitors (seeking the primary goals), we can conclude that what constitutes morally "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong" can not be applied to humanity as a whole, but only separate ethnic in-groups individually. Morally "good" behaviour in the context of racial groups "a" or "b", can be classified as any behaviour that aids in each group's survival and reproduction. Neither group has an obligation to ensure the reproduction and survival of other racial groups. In fact, if an act were to further a person's own racial group, even at the neglect of other racial groups, that act is moral.

Therefore, racism is moral.
Devilry
Posts: 5,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 1:20:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean, it's not the worst argument in the world. The deconstruction and then reconstruction of morality of course fails, because morality is just an intransigent thing, it doesn't exist anywhere to be altered (only perhaps according to its own principles), it doesn't live by any real justification or reasoning. It's just heart. It's tautology. A thing is wrong because it's wrong, a thing is good because it's good; there are no real reasons beyond those.

Still, there's maybe something to be said for living in accordance with one's nature. I mean, it's getting pretty tricky there. It's probably actually even interesting there. If your attempts at morality are beset by just your very nature, well, maybe you do just ball it up and throw it over your shoulder and attempt to start again. But under a title of "morality"? I mean, it seems to be in the nature of some to murder, rape, and steal. Are those things then moral, as they are in accord with some nature? How far down the rabbit hole do we go? Why are we making God of evolution, why not our own personal whims? It's almost as if you're looking for some common ground from which to build morality, and which is sensible enough, I suppose. But then for racism? lol.

I mean, you might say something for it just under a title of "humanity". Then make a consideration of it in your moralising otherwise. That wouldn't be totally unfair. It's what thett and Skep do on here, and well enough, in my opinion. I mean, I dunno. There are definitely things to consider in this OP, but morality won't really be argued with so much as maybe gotten around. Just follow your heart, Cass. Send nudes.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Unstobbaple
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 1:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/6/2017 11:02:23 PM, Zarroette wrote:

How would you define racism because under typical definitions we decided that it does not work when we said 'all wo/men are created equal.' It's worked out kind of well for us.

Did you guys not get around to that yet in Australia? Get that one on the to do list.

If you're just saying that experience with different cultures is helpful in determining behavior than great. You had me curious for 3 seconds.
Devilry
Posts: 5,099
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2017 1:27:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/7/2017 1:20:25 PM, Devilry wrote:
Send nudes.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.