What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
You've got issues. You aren't even consistent. It doesn't imply better, but we are higher (maybe I can see this, but there was never really that argument made)? You keep seeming as if you are informing me, but you're clueless. You don't seem to comprehend my post.
SNIP- swilow
*Right. The link. After I read through it, I didn't think it applied to any argument. It was still interesting, so I included it. This was why I said related, but that it is an aside (maybe sloppy).
*The hypothesis was an example of how evolution can occur. I think it's reasonable. I'm not sure why you have such an argument.
Species were naturally separated by boundaries, and the fact that we only had horseback for fast-travel. Now is kind of a different territory.
Snubbing each other? Groups do that all the time. We share with those we already share with, or those who share. It would come much more naturally to be "tribal". I am not saying we should totally give in, but we should be aware that certain behaviors will always be there, or at least for the foreseeable future.
There are things that you keep saying, as if you are trying to inform me about how evolution works, as if I have made an error that you are correcting, but I doubt you can pinpoint what you are actually making an argument with, from my exact words. Can you? I'd be happy to clarify, or maybe I need to realize I'm wrong, but you may be able to help me with that.
The only time I mentioned species in my posts, I said that they were all more or less the same species. The different groups, all the diversity of the planet, including our human "races" and ethnicities/ethnic groups, are all going through the same processing. But the distance between "human" and chimp is much greater than the distance between "Mongolian" and "Nigerian", for example. This is why I said "more or less" where I did, because species is a word, and it cannot describe to a T- it cannot be the definition and the definition does allow room to think, at least. The word "Species" means "look"- like "Spec"tate. And this could connect in meaning to "look like"- so in one very basic way, grouping species, we group things because they look like each other, in traits, and things (it gets very specific, with added requirements to make it so or not, or subspecies, or however to order). I can easily separate East Asian, and West African. We do not have quite the definition as different species, apart from each other, but there are noticeable differences. They are also not just skin-deep. And the implications of it are not just so dismissable.
Things aren't as clean, clear cut and dry like you seem to wish it would be. Yes, we are the same species, but things are very dynamic, and it isn't as easy as I'm just a racist fuck.
Would you like to have a contest? I'll list examples of where intermingling of different groups, however they were grouped (not that the metrics weren't of influence) was an issue, and you list examples where it wasn't.
SNIP- swilow
*Right. The link. After I read through it, I didn't think it applied to any argument. It was still interesting, so I included it. This was why I said related, but that it is an aside (maybe sloppy).
*The hypothesis was an example of how evolution can occur. I think it's reasonable. I'm not sure why you have such an argument.
Species were naturally separated by boundaries, and the fact that we only had horseback for fast-travel. Now is kind of a different territory.
Snubbing each other? Groups do that all the time. We share with those we already share with, or those who share. It would come much more naturally to be "tribal". I am not saying we should totally give in, but we should be aware that certain behaviors will always be there, or at least for the foreseeable future.
There are things that you keep saying, as if you are trying to inform me about how evolution works, as if I have made an error that you are correcting, but I doubt you can pinpoint what you are actually making an argument with, from my exact words. Can you? I'd be happy to clarify, or maybe I need to realize I'm wrong, but you may be able to help me with that.
The only time I mentioned species in my posts, I said that they were all more or less the same species. The different groups, all the diversity of the planet, including our human "races" and ethnicities/ethnic groups, are all going through the same processing. But the distance between "human" and chimp is much greater than the distance between "Mongolian" and "Nigerian", for example. This is why I said "more or less" where I did, because species is a word, and it cannot describe to a T- it cannot be the definition and the definition does allow room to think, at least. The word "Species" means "look"- like "Spec"tate. And this could connect in meaning to "look like"- so in one very basic way, grouping species, we group things because they look like each other, in traits, and things (it gets very specific, with added requirements to make it so or not, or subspecies, or however to order). I can easily separate East Asian, and West African. We do not have quite the definition as different species, apart from each other, but there are noticeable differences. They are also not just skin-deep. And the implications of it are not just so dismissable.
Things aren't as clean, clear cut and dry like you seem to wish it would be. Yes, we are the same species, but things are very dynamic, and it isn't as easy as I'm just a racist fuck.
Would you like to have a contest? I'll list examples of where intermingling of different groups, however they were grouped (not that the metrics weren't of influence) was an issue, and you list examples where it wasn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
