Yes, but what genes spacificaly is it that make up "race"? How deep does it go? Is it nothing more than the same skin color and a range of facial structures, or would you imply that there are other factors which would make one race better than another?
In the modern world, though race is an increasingly inacurate determination of "who some one is" or "where they come from" There are many people now who have never been to the land where their ansestors came from, and to assume that a person who looks like a member of another land or culture even remotely embrases the culture or values of that people.
This is completely rediculous. Don't deny people their individuality simply because you are too lazy to abandon your own pre-conseived notions.
So do you mean to propose that there is a distinctly and inherently unique "Black" mind and "White" mind and "Arab" mind, and a seperate mind for every race? Again, don't deny people their individualilty, just because you say that they are a part of a group does not mean that it is truely so.
What do I care who he is? His theory is bunk. Following this logic eskimos should be the most angry and aggresive people in the world, yet we really don't see this, do we? Also, doesn't extreem heat and dehydration make someone cranky? So evolutionarily speaking Affricans and Middle easterners are also biologicaly aggresive peoples!
Because there is no evidence for it, nor is it a theory to explain a phenomenon. He has started with the conclusion and then made the justification: whites are biologically aggressive people. Yet this conclusion was not based on observation, instead he built the theory just so that he could set the conclusion on top of it. It's a clearly biased and unscientific theory, and really is just laughable.
This is called the fundamental attribution error. That is, a person's tendency to blame their own failings, or negative attributes, on external circumstances (which act as a justification) however, when other people fail, or display negative attributes, it is because they are inherently bad people. So, when whites are aggressive, it is because they are a biologically angry people, when Arabs are angry, though, it is with good reasons from external influence.
Well thank you for that. And yes, you are right, I recognise that there are many others who's situation I could not be payed to be put in. I don't have it so bad as some people, but still I feel that I'm worse off than I should be.
This line of thinking has always made me chuckle a bit.
First off, there are many ways in which one can tell that another person is gay. Yes, the most obvious is sexual relations with a member of the same sex. Any act toward another male in public which displays that you two are somehow more affectionate, or just closer than it is standard for two heterosexual friends to be will tip someone off.
Aside from that, there is a sort of homosexual subculture, homosexuals will often just act and dress differently than heterosexuals, these kinds of variations can be seen in just about any minority group, of course these can not be attributed to any unified culture. As far as these traits go, though it's observer error to think that one will always display these traits. If you define a homosexual as one who displays these secondary sub cultural traits, then it is only the people who display such traits that you will label as homosexuals. Those who do not display these traits or act "straight" (A funny way of thinking about it, because I act "Straight" but it's not an act for me, it's just how I am), so those homosexuals which do not display the traits you are looking for will simply fly under your radar and be labeled as just another heterosexual.
how Zahyunin suffer from a mono-ethnic viewpoint , yet claim to be super-multiethnical (lol)