salttee wrote:

mham001 wrote:

As for racism in the US, no German has any business lecturing anybody about racism.

You need to explain this statement. You can't possibly be saying that a current German's opinions should be suppressed because of something that happened 75 years ago before they were even born. Or are you saying that?

BTW
You express all the attitudes and incorrect beliefs about race that bigots embrace, you should have no complaint about anyone here calling you a bigot.

I recommend you investigate 'racism in germany' as well as 'hate crimes germany'. As for those crimes against humanity of 75 years ago, I and my children, as white and half white Americans, are expected to pay for crimes of 200 years ago. What is the difference?

I also recommend you look into the actual meaning of the word 'bigot' Here, I'll help you -

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

By far, today's liberals are easily the most intolerant of views with which they disagree. If I were one to throw around names, I would say they are the bigots.

I'd also like to hear about my supposed "incorrect" views on race. I, who have lived as a minority most of my life, would be interested in your qualifications to make such a statement.

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Aaaaah........ the defense of a demagogue (I have already checked the definition to see if it fairly applies to you. It does).

buy a real dictionary...

A leader of a popular faction, or of the mob; a political agitator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of the mob in order to obtain power or further his own interests; an unprincipled or factious popular orator.

From Oxford dictionary

Is he a leader? Nope
Does he want power? Not that it is apparent
Does he appeal to prejudices, beyond the prejudice facts entail? Where?

Best regards
Thomas

I have a number of real dictionaries, thank you. But yours' provided a good definition. Were you blind to it?

"an unprincipled or factious popular orator."

Yes, he wants power. The power to bash people into submission to his biases and opinions. And when he finds himself incompetent to do so he declares them his personal enemy or foe, whatever that silencing technique is called so that he will never again have to face criticism from that person.

In calling others racists, such a father of biracial children, he appeals to prejudice when the facts argue otherwise.

This may not be apparent to you, but it is pretty clear to others who post here.

salttee wrote:

mham001 wrote:

As for racism in the US, no German has any business lecturing anybody about racism.

You need to explain this statement. You can't possibly be saying that a current German's opinions should be suppressed because of something that happened 75 years ago before they were even born. Or are you saying that?.

I have a US friend that used to complain the Holocaust and Hitler could have only happened in Germany because of how Germans think when she was drunk. After Trump was elected she was actually a large enough person to come and say that she was wrong, since it obviously can just as easily happen anywhere else.

mham001 wrote:

I recommend you investigate 'racism in germany' as well as 'hate crimes germany'.

as said before, we have people that like Trump too. And Neonazis. Which is largely the same. Interesting enough, hate crimes correlate quite nicely with how popular right wing parties are. Seems to be true in the US as well, since hate crimes explode since you have a far right President. Keep in mind, we talk about the guy that commended people saying that Sandy Hook was a government red flag operation with child actors getting killed, which is about as bat shit crazy you can get, for the good work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJqLAleEnKw

As for those crimes against humanity of 75 years ago, I and my children, as white and half white Americans, are expected to pay for crimes of 200 years ago. What is the difference?

The difference is that you don´t pay.Or when do you plan to return all the stolen property?

mham001 wrote:

you should hear the Chinese I lived with for years. They hate and look down on everybody not like them.

1. I know plenty of non-racist Chinese
2. "Others are worse, so there is nothing wrong with us"? Really?

BobPatterson wrote:

Yes, he wants power. .

So, you just made up a crazy, counterfactual image of him to make him fit your description..... right. Well, i think that is a crucial skill when you support Trump: rejecting reality.

In calling others racists, such a father of biracial children, he appeals to prejudice when the facts argue otherwise.

those are in no way mutually exclusive. As mham001 pointed out himself, Chinese he was living with, where still racist. In your world living together with someone of a different race would be a fact arguing otherwise.
Does being in a interracial relationship mean you are less likely to be overtly racist? Sure, i would even assume much less. Also zero chance to join the KKK if you have a black partner Does it mean you can´t be racist? Hell no. Why? Because we are all more or less racist, that is a "skill" evolution has build into our brains. It is rare to meet a different culture without finding prejudices you have without ever being aware of them before. If you think you are absolutely no racist, you most certainly are one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-estab ... 22380.html

best regards
Thomas.

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Yes, he wants power. .

So, you just made up a crazy, counterfactual image of him to make him fit your description..... right. Well, i think that is a crucial skill when you support Trump: rejecting reality.

In calling others racists, such a father of biracial children, he appeals to prejudice when the facts argue otherwise.

those are in no way mutually exclusive. As mham001 pointed out himself, Chinese he was living with, where still racist. In your world living together with someone of a different race would be a fact arguing otherwise.
Does being in a interracial relationship mean you are less likely to be overtly racist? Sure, i would even assume much less. Also zero chance to join the KKK if you have a black partner Does it mean you can´t be racist? Hell no. Why? Because we are all more or less racist, that is a "skill" evolution has build into our brains. It is rare to meet a different culture without finding prejudices you have without ever being aware of them before. If you think you are absolutely no racist, you most certainly are one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-estab ... 22380.html

best regards
Thomas.

I really don't know why you offered that HuffingtonPost article as some sort of evidence. I must assume that you agree with at least the tone of it and perhaps with its specifics. In some ways it sounds like you. Do you really accept and agree with this statement from that article?

"Instead, it’s about knowing that all white people in this country are racist until they take on the continuous task of unlearning what everyone and everything has taught them about race in America."

It certainly is/was not true of my parents, and it is not true of me.

It is evident from the story she told that the woman who wrote that article was herself racist, raised by a father who never met a white person he could trust, and instilled in his daughter a strong dislike, if not hatred, of white people. He apparently also never taught her that a foul tongue and chip on her shoulder were not social graces. If the language used in that article does not offend you, then I feel sorry for you.

Forgive me, but I do not understand your statement: "In your world living together with someone of a different race would be a fact arguing otherwise."

It might be good if you tried to explain yourself.

BobPatterson wrote:

I really don't know why you offered that HuffingtonPost article as some sort of evidence. I must assume that you agree with at least the tone of it and perhaps with its specifics. In some ways it sounds like you. Do you really accept and agree with this statement from that article?

Since I not just posted the link to demonstrate a specific point and are on record with what I think about racism I don't see any need to Adress the same issue again.

It certainly is/was not true of my parents, and it is not true of me.

If you are sure of not being a racist, you are one. There is no such thing as a person free of prejudices. Evolution hasn't build us that way. You can minimization the effect, but the is no way to eleminate the long long list of cognitive biases that are build into our brains.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I really don't know why you offered that HuffingtonPost article as some sort of evidence. I must assume that you agree with at least the tone of it and perhaps with its specifics. In some ways it sounds like you. Do you really accept and agree with this statement from that article?

Since I not just posted the link to demonstrate a specific point and are on record with what I think about racism I don't see any need to Adress the same issue again.

It certainly is/was not true of my parents, and it is not true of me.

If you are sure of not being a racist, you are one. There is no such thing as a person free of prejudices. Evolution hasn't build us that way. You can minimization the effect, but the is no way to eleminate the long long list of cognitive biases that are build into our brains.

Best regards
Thomas

I'd hate to have to live in your "either black or white" world where you have been seduced by enough education to think you really know something. From fear of sitting in warm seats to posting racially-based, vulgar rants (and approving of them) you exude a superior, elitist attitude that permits you to look down on others as inferiors.

Biological evolution can hone reactions such as flight distance (flight or fight decisions), but it cannot form racial biases such that they are inherited. Racial bias is learned, can be taught, and can become ingrained through experience. Culture can make us racist but our genes can't.

By the way, it is entirely possible (perhaps inevitable) for us to develop biases, prejudices, abhorrences of various kinds without our becoming racist. We can choose what to dislike.

You can also choose whether or not to espouse silly nonsense in online forums, chat rooms or mail lists. It would be nice if you would drop the silly nonsense.

Cheers

BobPatterson wrote:

Biological evolution can hone reactions such as flight distance (flight or fight decisions), but it cannot form racial biases such that they are inherited.

Is this opinion of yours supported by a majority of the scientific community? I believe that it's not, but I will look at any citations you have to support your opinion.

BobPatterson wrote:

Racial bias is learned, can be taught, and can become ingrained through experience. Culture can make us racist but our genes can't.

You're OK until you say "genes can't". Isn't it our genes which predisposes us to adopt the types of cultures humans create, ie: example dogs are pack animals, dingos are solitary animals, isn't that determined by genes? Genes underlie everything.

BobPatterson wrote:

We can choose what to dislike

Yes an educated or renaissance person can choose, but in absence of such education, the path of human evolution appears to have predisposed us towards rejection of the "other." This is demonstrated by the ubiquitous creation of clans or tribes in primitive cultures.

I believe this subject is more complex than you seem to think.

BobPatterson wrote:

I'd hate to have to live in your "either black or white" world where you have been seduced by enough education to think you really know something.

People who are educated seldom live in a "black or white" world, and that's what the author of what you replied do certianly wasn't doing. Such absolutes are normally from people who are not education and go on heresay, or who have bought into an extreme element of a religion, where any shades of gray destroys their very reason for being.

BobPatterson wrote:

From fear of sitting in warm seats to posting racially-based, vulgar rants (and approving of them) you exude a superior, elitist attitude that permits you to look down on others as inferiors.

It sounds like you have an ineferiority complex. That seems to be the problem. You've already said that people who are "seduced by education" (which sounds like that if you're educated, you're an ass), shouldn't be believed. I think the problem is you don't think you're good enough.

BobPatterson wrote:

Biological evolution can hone reactions such as flight distance (flight or fight decisions), but it cannot form racial biases such that they are inherited. Racial bias is learned, can be taught, and can become ingrained through experience. Culture can make us racist but our genes can't.

The question was asked if you can prove that. Can you? The onus is on your to prove your point. I'm not so sure bilogical factors don't pay a factor. But I'm not convinced of it either.

BobPatterson wrote:

By the way, it is entirely possible (perhaps inevitable) for us to develop biases, prejudices, abhorrences of various kinds without our becoming racist. We can choose what to dislike.

If that doesn't sound like a less-than-subtle "I'll be racist if I want", I don't know what is.

Bob Patterson wrote:

You can also choose whether or not to espouse silly nonsense in online forums, chat rooms or mail lists. It would be nice if you would drop the silly nonsense.

Saying "silly nonsense" twice in one sentence sounds so much like 45.

Hillis wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I'd hate to have to live in your "either black or white" world where you have been seduced by enough education to think you really know something.

People who are educated seldom live in a "black or white" world, and that's what the author of what you replied do certianly wasn't doing. Such absolutes are normally from people who are not education and go on heresay, or who have bought into an extreme element of a religion, where any shades of gray destroys their very reason for being.

BobPatterson wrote:

From fear of sitting in warm seats to posting racially-based, vulgar rants (and approving of them) you exude a superior, elitist attitude that permits you to look down on others as inferiors.

It sounds like you have an ineferiority complex. That seems to be the problem. You've already said that people who are "seduced by education" (which sounds like that if you're educated, you're an ass), shouldn't be believed. I think the problem is you don't think you're good enough.

BobPatterson wrote:

Biological evolution can hone reactions such as flight distance (flight or fight decisions), but it cannot form racial biases such that they are inherited. Racial bias is learned, can be taught, and can become ingrained through experience. Culture can make us racist but our genes can't.

The question was asked if you can prove that. Can you? The onus is on your to prove your point. I'm not so sure bilogical factors don't pay a factor. But I'm not convinced of it either.

BobPatterson wrote:

By the way, it is entirely possible (perhaps inevitable) for us to develop biases, prejudices, abhorrences of various kinds without our becoming racist. We can choose what to dislike.

If that doesn't sound like a less-than-subtle "I'll be racist if I want", I don't know what is.

Bob Patterson wrote:

You can also choose whether or not to espouse silly nonsense in online forums, chat rooms or mail lists. It would be nice if you would drop the silly nonsense.

Saying "silly nonsense" twice in one sentence sounds so much like 45.

They were consecutive sentences. Silly of you not to recognize that.

BobPatterson wrote:

They were consecutive sentences. Silly of you not to recognize that.

In the English language a sentence presents a thought, usually a single thought. Hillis dealt with each thought you presented separately in detail, which prevents the conversation from drifting off into vague generalities. Do you have a problem with that?

salttee wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Biological evolution can hone reactions such as flight distance (flight or fight decisions), but it cannot form racial biases such that they are inherited.

Is this opinion of yours supported by a majority of the scientific community? I believe that it's not, but I will look at any citations you have to support your opinion.

BobPatterson wrote:

Racial bias is learned, can be taught, and can become ingrained through experience. Culture can make us racist but our genes can't.

You're OK until you say "genes can't". Isn't it our genes which predisposes us to adopt the types of cultures humans create, ie: example dogs are pack animals, dingos are solitary animals, isn't that determined by genes? Genes underlie everything.

BobPatterson wrote:

We can choose what to dislike

Yes an educated or renaissance person can choose, but in absence of such education, the path of human evolution appears to have predisposed us towards rejection of the "other." This is demonstrated by the ubiquitous creation of clans or tribes in primitive cultures.

I believe this subject is more complex than you seem to think.

Almost every textbook dealing with evolution explains the virtually universal rejection by science of Lamarckism and also of "social Darwinism" as being genetically based. There is no path for feedback to affect the genes passed on to future generations.

Our genes change in frequency within populations due to mutations, genetic drift, sexual selection, and other factors. Our thoughts cannot change our genes (at least not naturally, the recent ability to manipulate genes in the laboratory being something new and not natural).

Genes do not underlie everything. Inventions, the arts, social constructs, the "evolution" of religious beliefs, different languages, are some examples of things that arise within cultures and are passed on culturally, not genetically.

The very idea of race itself is, nowadays, generally rejected by science. The category of "race" is not considered valid by the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature.

There are many conundrums in biology and sociology. So far as anyone knows there are no genes that predispose humans to be either slaves or masters. Yet, slavery exists in nature (some ants being famous examples).

Many animals are social/communal while others are loners (perhaps excepting mating seasons). Human beings are social animals. We gather quite naturally into social groupings, call them what you wish. So do almost all of our forebears and close relatives among the primates. We did not invent the reality of family, clan, tribe. The concepts of them and the labels we apply to them are cultural.

This link http://darwiniana.org/ is to a website that I constructed 15-20 years ago. It contains many links to textbooks and references bearing upon biological evolution. Unfortunately, since I donated the website to a museum for hosting and maintenance, many of the links have been permitted to go stale. Since my friend (now retired museum director) has retired, I will not be surprised if the Darwiniana website disappears some day.

BobPatterson wrote:

salttee wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Biological evolution can hone reactions such as flight distance (flight or fight decisions), but it cannot form racial biases such that they are inherited.

Is this opinion of yours supported by a majority of the scientific community? I believe that it's not, but I will look at any citations you have to support your opinion.

BobPatterson wrote:

Racial bias is learned, can be taught, and can become ingrained through experience. Culture can make us racist but our genes can't.

You're OK until you say "genes can't". Isn't it our genes which predisposes us to adopt the types of cultures humans create, ie: example dogs are pack animals, dingos are solitary animals, isn't that determined by genes? Genes underlie everything.

BobPatterson wrote:

We can choose what to dislike

Yes an educated or renaissance person can choose, but in absence of such education, the path of human evolution appears to have predisposed us towards rejection of the "other." This is demonstrated by the ubiquitous creation of clans or tribes in primitive cultures.

I believe this subject is more complex than you seem to think.

Almost every textbook dealing with evolution explains the virtually universal rejection by science of Lamarckism and also of "social Darwinism" as being genetically based. There is no path for feedback to affect the genes passed on to future generations.

Our genes change in frequency within populations due to mutations, genetic drift, sexual selection, and other factors. Our thoughts cannot change our genes (at least not naturally, the recent ability to manipulate genes in the laboratory being something new and not natural).

Genes do not underlie everything. Inventions, the arts, social constructs, the "evolution" of religious beliefs, different languages, are some examples of things that arise within cultures and are passed on culturally, not genetically.

The very idea of race itself is, nowadays, generally rejected by science. The category of "race" is not considered valid by the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature.

There are many conundrums in biology and sociology. So far as anyone knows there are no genes that predispose humans to be either slaves or masters. Yet, slavery exists in nature (some ants being famous examples).

Many animals are social/communal while others are loners (perhaps excepting mating seasons). Human beings are social animals. We gather quite naturally into social groupings, call them what you wish. So do almost all of our forebears and close relatives among the primates. We did not invent the reality of family, clan, tribe. The concepts of them and the labels we apply to them are cultural.

This link http://darwiniana.org/ is to a website that I constructed 15-20 years ago. It contains many links to textbooks and references bearing upon biological evolution. Unfortunately, since I donated the website to a museum for hosting and maintenance, many of the links have been permitted to go stale. Since my friend (now retired museum director) has retired, I will not be surprised if the Darwiniana website disappears some day.

Genes determine our skin pigmentation. Some of us have less pigmentation, some have more. Because of that, some humans have been taught to hate those with different skin pigments.
Fate determines where we are born, regardless of skin pigment. Because of that, some humans have been taught to hate those people born in various cities or countries.
We decide where we want to live, to some extent. Because of that, some humans have been taught to hate those people who live in various cities or countries.

seb146 wrote:

Genes determine our skin pigmentation. Some of us have less pigmentation, some have more. Because of that, some humans have been taught to hate those with different skin pigments.
Fate determines where we are born, regardless of skin pigment. Because of that, some humans have been taught to hate those people born in various cities or countries.
We decide where we want to live, to some extent. Because of that, some humans have been taught to hate those people who live in various cities or countries.

Yes. Yes. Yes. "Because of that, some humans have been taught......."

So what?

BobPatterson wrote:

Almost every textbook dealing with evolution explains the virtually universal rejection by science of Lamarckism and also of "social Darwinism" as being genetically based. There is no path for feedback to affect the genes passed on to future generations.

Our genes change in frequency within populations due to mutations, genetic drift, sexual selection, and other factors. Our thoughts cannot change our genes (at least not naturally, the recent ability to manipulate genes in the laboratory being something new and not natural).

Genes do not underlie everything. Inventions, the arts, social constructs, the "evolution" of religious beliefs, different languages, are some examples of things that arise within cultures and are passed on culturally, not genetically.

The very idea of race itself is, nowadays, generally rejected by science. The category of "race" is not considered valid by the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature.

There are many conundrums in biology and sociology. So far as anyone knows there are no genes that predispose humans to be either slaves or masters. Yet, slavery exists in nature (some ants being famous examples).

Many animals are social/communal while others are loners (perhaps excepting mating seasons). Human beings are social animals. We gather quite naturally into social groupings, call them what you wish. So do almost all of our forebears and close relatives among the primates. We did not invent the reality of family, clan, tribe. The concepts of them and the labels we apply to them are cultural.

This link http://darwiniana.org/ is to a website that I constructed 15-20 years ago. It contains many links to textbooks and references bearing upon biological evolution. Unfortunately, since I donated the website to a museum for hosting and maintenance, many of the links have been permitted to go stale. Since my friend (now retired museum director) has retired, I will not be surprised if the Darwiniana website disappears some day.

I'm not talking about "Lamarckism" or "social Darwinism" or any such thing. Picture Jung's concept of archetypes of the collective unconscious. He outlines many examples, one of them is God, every culture, every group of humans has a concept of "god", it is in a sense, hardwired into the human brain; the way the human brain works (which we know next to nothing about) has created this concept everywhere on earth and in some cases quite independently of other cultures, every culture has a virgin birth myth, every human grouping has created clans, tribes or factions by whatever name. Inventions are not passed down through our genes but the stimulus to invent is "passed down through our genes".

From what we have learned about the organic chemistry which encompasses carbon based organisms, it appears that a human genetic code could be transmitted to aliens in another galaxy and they could with the use of the same organic chemistry, create a colony of humans. This other world creation would then organize itself into clans and would believe in a god and would invent myths, one of which would be virgin birth and so on.

After a time, the clans of this creation would war with each other, whether or not there were physical differences. But if they developed separate colonies, after a time, due to genetic drift, there would be physical differences - and these humans would invent a word to denote what we call "race". They would also have art and they would invent things and in the earlier primitive living off the land societies it would pass that the larger more powerful ones with peckers would dominate the smaller ones without peckers. And so on.

Genes do underlie everything.

salttee wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Biological evolution can hone reactions such as flight distance (flight or fight decisions), but it cannot form racial biases such that they are inherited.

Is this opinion of yours supported by a majority of the scientific community? I believe that it's not, but I will look at any citations you have to support your opinion..

I would think it is a side effect of reactions programmed into us by Evolution. There is no "avoid blacks" gene to inherit, but there is a "be carefull, he looks different then me" gene. Our agent detection system always assumes anything has bad intentions unless we know it doesn´t have..... that is why we yell at cars that won´t start as well.

So, you both can be correct. There is no gene coding racial bias, yet racism is still part of our genes, just in an indirect way. Racism is an unintentional, negative outgrowth of otherwise useful behavior, the same way that Religion most likely is, since both have no survival value. We also don´t have a gene for that, but lots of processes going on that make us susceptible to that particular meme virus. That is why both show such astounding similarities with behavior modifying parasites like Toxoplasma gondii.

best regards
Thomas

salttee wrote:

......every group of humans has a concept of "god", it is in a sense, hardwired into the human brain; the way the human brain works (which we know next to nothing about)...... .

You should have stopped right there, instead of spinning fantasies about virgin births and transmitting human genes to unknown other worlds alien cultures.

tommy1808 wrote:

I would think it is a side effect of reactions programmed into us by Evolution. There is no "avoid blacks" gene to inherit, but there is a "be carefull, he looks different then me" gene. Our agent detection system always assumes anything has bad intentions unless we know it doesn´t have..... that is why we yell at cars that won´t start as well.

What you or I would "like to think" is irrelevant. What demonstrably "is" must be considered.

Can you identify which gene or genes on which chromosomes constitute the "be careful" gene(s)? Mapped genes have names.

"Yelling at cars" genes is a cool idea. Aaaah, the "frustration gene"!

Keep dreaming.

BobPatterson wrote:

Can you identify which gene or genes on which chromosomes constitute the "be careful" gene(s)? Mapped genes have names..

I would suggest you learn a bit about how genes work. There are no genes for x behavior at all. It is all in the combination of genes. That is how you can share about 80% of your genes with a banana and still not look like one. Everything is a mutual effect of several genes, talking about a gene for something is only convenient, it doesn´t have much bearing on how genes really work.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Can you identify which gene or genes on which chromosomes constitute the "be careful" gene(s)? Mapped genes have names..

I would suggest you learn a bit about how genes work. There are no genes for x behavior at all. It is all in the combination of genes. That is how you can share about 80% of your genes with a banana and still not look like one. Everything is a mutual effect of several genes, talking about a gene for something is only convenient, it doesn´t have much bearing on how genes really work.

best regards
Thomas

In other words, when you spoke above about there is a "be careful, he looks different then me gene", you were either not truthful, or you were deceptively trying to give the impression that you actually knew something.

You might have noticed that I presented you with the option of identifying a gene or genes and on which chromosomes (plural). I have a small and far from complete knowledge of how genes work. But I know not to try to bluff my way through a discussion of biological evolution as you are doing.

BobPatterson wrote:

In other words, when you spoke above about there is a "be careful, he looks different then me gene", you were either not truthful, or you were deceptively trying to give the impression that you actually knew something..

No, i was just using language the way scientists are using language when discussing genes. Much like, when talking science, you use the word "theory" with the meaning "as far as we can tell, that is a fact", and not as in "just a theory".

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

In other words, when you spoke above about there is a "be careful, he looks different then me gene", you were either not truthful, or you were deceptively trying to give the impression that you actually knew something..

No, i was just using language the way scientists are using language when discussing genes. Much like, when talking science, you use the word "theory" with the meaning "as far as we can tell, that is a fact", and not as in "just a theory".

best regards
Thomas

Please forgive me for having to ask if English is your first language. If it not then I must not fault you for what seems to me a lack of imprecision in speech/writing.

I do not mean to argue with someone over word choice and usage when we probably mean the same thing.

Cheers

So because of the extravagant lifestyle of Trump and his family, the secret service wanted 55m more in the FY2018. Their request was denied. 25m is because the first lady resides in New York. So it seems 170.000 people signed a petition to make Melania live in the White House.

In Dutch:

http://www.welingelichtekringen.nl/poli ... lania.html

BobPatterson wrote:

Please forgive me for having to ask if English is your first language. If it not then I must not fault you for what seems to me a lack of imprecision in speech/writing.

Tommy is conveying ideas. It is you who has been splitting hairs over word definition.

BobPatterson wrote:

I do not mean to argue with someone.......Cheers

So far that's all you have done is to argue. You haven't conveyed a single idea.

BobPatterson wrote:

You should have stopped right there, instead of spinning fantasies about virgin births and transmitting human genes to unknown other worlds alien cultures.

The alien world allegory was merely a vehicle to present the idea of a human being created without any carryover of knowledge or culture from present humanity. I intended that to be the basis for a continuing conversation. But that's clearly too complex for you. You just seem to specialize in insults; you have managed to insult all four people who have been trying to converse with you in this conversation. And you haven't said a thing of your own ideas. But that time is passed form me; I have no more interest in your ideas.

BobPatterson wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

In other words, when you spoke above about there is a "be careful, he looks different then me gene", you were either not truthful, or you were deceptively trying to give the impression that you actually knew something..

No, i was just using language the way scientists are using language when discussing genes. Much like, when talking science, you use the word "theory" with the meaning "as far as we can tell, that is a fact", and not as in "just a theory".

best regards
Thomas

Please forgive me for having to ask if English is your first language. If it not then I must not fault you for what seems to me a lack of imprecision in speech/writing.

I do not mean to argue with someone over word choice and usage when we probably mean the same thing.

Cheers

This is a perfect example you were asking for of the "be careful" gene. You just assume her/his first language is not English.

As far as what I wrote, prejudice and discrimination are learned behavior. There is an inherent "fight or flight" when encountering something or someone new. That instinct, "fight or flight," is found in all animals from humans to mosquitoes and everything in between. If you look at the country as a whole over the past 30 years, much of the population has been listening to "Democrats bad" and "Obama bad" and counter with "I'm right because the voice that told me to trust him says so." That is learned behavior. A good parallel is Pavolv and his experiments.

seb146 wrote:

This is a perfect example you were asking for of the "be careful" gene. You just assume her/his first language is not English.

Oh, i just take it as a compliment that he has to ask

If you look at the country as a whole over the past 30 years, much of the population has been listening to "Democrats bad" and "Obama bad" and counter with "I'm right because the voice that told me to trust him says so." That is learned behavior.

And why racism and religiosity correlate rather nicely. Both require you to believe without evidence, an both infections turn the mental immune system off. Racists are usually very capable to notice and point out racism and prejudices they don´t share in others, just like religious people have no problem seeing the inconsistencies in other peoples religions, but usually fail to see it in their own. That is why i picked the analogy of Toxoplasma gondii, which turn the fear of cats of in its victims.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

This is a perfect example you were asking for of the "be careful" gene. You just assume her/his first language is not English.

Oh, i just take it as a compliment that he has to ask

If you look at the country as a whole over the past 30 years, much of the population has been listening to "Democrats bad" and "Obama bad" and counter with "I'm right because the voice that told me to trust him says so." That is learned behavior.

And why racism and religiosity correlate rather nicely. Both require you to believe without evidence, an both infections turn the mental immune system off. Racists are usually very capable to notice and point out racism and prejudices they don´t share in others, just like religious people have no problem seeing the inconsistencies in other peoples religions, but usually fail to see it in their own. That is why i picked the analogy of Toxoplasma gondii, which turn the fear of cats of in its victims.

best regards
Thomas

Thomas thank you or introducing me to Toxoplasma gondii. I hadn't heard of it before. I found an Atlantic Magazine article on the subject: very interesting.
Here's a link if anybody else is interested.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... zy/308873/