Hate's New Look

[Michael]

I actually have a bit of free time, a small bit, but a bit none the less. Lets see if I can type fast and make sense at the same time? Perhaps not!?

That said, perhaps you might explain to her why you think it's unethical.

Not that I protest. I agree, it's hideously unethical. And my reasons are fairly simple. We are the human species. In that context there is right and wrong. Teaching children racism is wrong simply because it disrupts society and thus interferes with the human endeavor.

It's amazing to me. I am part of a species that has the power to exert influence over its evolution, and yet I really do wonder if we won't kill ourselves off instead of do anything good by that influence.

My reasons are similar to yours.

I'd also add that a set of physical phenotypes, derived from genetic heritage, (that are completely out of ones personal control - if you're born with brown skin then you are) seems IMO to be a rather ugly manner in which God would banish a person to eternal Damnation. Really, such thinking cuts across one of the fundamental high-points of religion - self improvement. Unless you're going to say bleaching your skin white is self-improvement?!?!? Then I'd say such belief is wrong-headed and therefor from my point of view (which is similar to yours) unethical.

Anyway, race pre say is an illusion. It doesn't really exist.

I almost wonder if there's a very deep seated genetic program funning in the back ground here - kill the guys from the other tribe, take their stuff. Oh wait, Oh wait, there's a part of me that says don't kill. Oh wait Oh wait, God says it's OK because they're from over there in that other tribe of people and are competing for the same resources as me and my tribe (for which I share a lot of genes with...)


Sure, maybe a long time ago killing the other people did help propagate ones genes but IF, like other aspects of our society, religion has progressed to a stage of being more about self-improvement rather then blind obedience THEN I's say yes, teaching racism is unethical in this modern age.

 

[Michael]

Michael! Welcome back.

Thanks Bells

But really, I am still really busy so maybe just a pop in now and again. I also got rid of internet at home so I'm kind of cheating myself out of time at work!!! But, I was here quite late so I think it's OK

Is it the God they worship, or is it them as individuals?

Interesting question! If there were a God, then I'd say yeah, it is unethical (if it ascribes to such thinking). But, we both know it's really them as individuals.

By not forcing them underground where the hatred builds and gives them the excuse to say that they are somehow right and thus, have been driven into hiding. I think they should be allowed into public discourse so that the majority can debate and force them to actually address their hatred and show them that such beliefs are archaic and downright insane.

I completely agree.

There has been much talk about 'white guilt' on this forum and in the public domain in particular. If you read the public comments that were attached with that article, you would see that the sentiment from whites that they should somehow be ashamed for being whites is quite strong. That's the thing. Whites, like blacks or any other race, should be proud of their race and their racial origins. The issue arises when that feeling of pride leads to feelings of racial superiority and hatred towards other races.

I agree that they can feel pride in the historical accomplishments of people from their culture when positive in nature. (Is killing and conquering other people something to be proud of? That's something to think about?) I don't think we should talk about "race" but instead about "culture".

 

[Michael]

There are Jewish summer camps which fly the Israeli flag, teach their children that they are the Chosen people, sing Hebrew songs and mourn their oppression.

Is that hate?

There are atheist groups which wear the A teeshirt, discuss the delusions of theists, think the nonreligious are better than the religious and mourn their oppression.

Is that hate?

In both cases yes I think it can lead to hatefulness.

I don't like the idea of a genetically "chosen" people - in this age this is not the right way to think. It's racism and is wrong-minded. I personally think that this line-of-reasoning is one of the reasons why Jewish people have not integrated all that well and have gotten the snot kicked out of them many times in many countries.

Atheists are not teaching racism so this seems to be somwhat different - isn't it? I do agree that there can be something very wrong with "discussing" theists IF in said discussions it leads to physically harming theists. However, we discuss racists because we think racism is harmful, now, perhaps 5000 years ago racism made really damn good sense. So, maybe racism NOW, in the modern era, is what is wrong. 5000 years ago Theism probably made good sense. Maybe now it still does? Or maybe not? Or, as I think, some forms do make very good sense. Like I said, I think society need theism, at this point in our social development.

it's the kind of theism that's something we need to discuss. Scientology may be much more logical and open-minded compared with Christianity for example. Maybe that's a better religion for modern people?

I think we can discuss and not be "racists" for doing so.

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheists are not teaching racism

No they just have a low opinion of the mental faculties of all theists. Eugenics is more their forte.

 

[Michael]

Whites are better at being white than black people.
Blacks are better than whites at being black people.
Jews make better jews than they do muslims.
Muslims make better muslims than they do jews.

Actually this is interesting.

Jews can become Muslim and Muslims can convert to Judaism - so actually a Muslim may make a really wonderful Jew? Of course then they are a Jew not a Muslim.

Second, I know blacks raised in very affluent neighborhoods who would NOT get along with blacks in the "hood" whereas white that grew up in the "hood" fit in perfectly fine. So sometimes whites are better at being black then blacks - if you think of black as being something associated with the majority of black inner city culture in the USA.

It's all breaks down and we see again it's about culture and ideas and not phenotype skin color.

 

[Michael]

Eugenics is more their forte.

Ahhh Eugenics ... would murder by any other name smell half the rose?

 

[Michael]

I guess I do. If you truly in your heart believe that people of color are despised by God. I mean if that is what you truly believed to be the truth, what would be the ethical thing to tell your kids when they inquire about your beliefs?

Ahhh, I see. But, I'm asking YOU what YOU think.

Sure for a WASP white supremest teaching racism IS most definitely ethical.


Slave owners of course thought Slavery perfectly ethics (ironically they justified that by one biblical verse of another as well... another something that should be dropped from the Bible).

 

[takandjive]

No they just have a low opinion of the mental faculties of all theists. Eugenics is more their forte.

I don't agree, SAM. I was raised atheist, and I don't look at all theists as stupid.

 

[S.A.M.]

Michael:

It depends in which society you live. Every idea of human or human rights is pretty subjective. The only consistency you see is that everyone clings to the values of their own society as the right one.

I don't agree, SAM. I was raised atheist, and I don't look at all theists as stupid.

Thats okay, I was raised as a human being and I consider many of them as extremely idiotic.

 

[takandjive]

Heh. Yeah, but my point is, you can't assume how people view anything based on their religious background.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sure, I was just generalising in the same way that Michael was.

 

[Michael]

It depends in which society you live. Every idea of human or human rights is pretty subjective.

Yes, I agree, which is why I am asking people their PERSONAL ethical opinion and why they hold it.

So you have an ethical opinion on WASP racism? So you personally think it's fine and dandy or you think, hmmmm, seems unethical.

Just because some people think raping children is ethical, and as I read on BBC with 100 million child prostitutes in India alone, obviously some people feel it's fine, doesn't mean that you have no ethical opinion of your own on it.

Right?

You can't say, well, some people think it's right to rape children and so that's their business. It's not just their business. It all of our's business if it's in our societies. That's what having a society is all about.

Isn't it?

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Ahhh, I see. But, I'm asking YOU what YOU think.

Sure for a WASP white supremest teaching racism IS most definitely ethical.


Slave owners of course thought Slavery perfectly ethics (ironically they justified that by one biblical verse of another as well... another something that should be dropped from the Bible).

Well of course I wouldn't teach my children that.( Since they would be self loathing and that's not beneficial to them .) Since I don't believe this particular ideology it would be highly unethical for me to teach (with the intent that will adopt the belief) it to others.

 

[Michael]

Well of course I wouldn't teach my children that.( Since they would be self loathing and that's not beneficial to them .) Since I don't believe this particular ideology it would be highly unethical for me to teach (with the intent that will adopt the belief) it to others.

I thought as much.

Perhaps I should have set as pretense "in modern day 'insert your culture' do YOU think it's ethical"...

The whole thing got me to thinking of medieval Japan where a merchant would have to jump off his horse and bow with his face to the ground (or mud as it often rains in Japan) when a Samurai walked by - if not then it was perfectly ethical for the Samurai to chop off his head at the shoulders. I was thinking, you know, that's a great example of something that was ethical in Japan and now is not ethical in Japan. Then I got to thinking about the financial melt-down and hmmmm maybe those 15th century Japanese were on to something (^o^) The sad thing is, the put Merchants at the bottom of the social ladder just for the exact reasons we are having this melt-down. Cycle of History I suppose.

But, anyway, back to the post, any God who would put people in hell simply due to their genetic make-up , I mean, surely SURELY most people would agree that such a God is unethical?

Yeah?

MII

 

[sniffy]

Actually this is interesting.

Jews can become Muslim and Muslims can convert to Judaism - so actually a Muslim may make a really wonderful Jew? Of course then they are a Jew not a Muslim.

Second, I know blacks raised in very affluent neighborhoods who would NOT get along with blacks in the "hood" whereas white that grew up in the "hood" fit in perfectly fine. So sometimes whites are better at being black then blacks - if you think of black as being something associated with the majority of black inner city culture in the USA.

It's all breaks down and we see again it's about culture and ideas and not phenotype skin color.

Ha ha ha you get it.

Humans are very good at being animals which sometimes is not so good for their fellow humans or other animals. I would say fear of 'other' is very strong in humans. We look for cues that say 'they' are like us. Where the cues are too few or are absent we reinforce their otherness in order to ostracise and then justify our treatment of 'them'.

That is why religion, race and natioinality are such strong dividers and are used as such by those for whom divisions are useful.

 

[Xylene]

Considering that every woman in the world is descended from Mitochondrial Eve, a woman who lived somewhere in East Africa ca 130,000 years ago; and also considering that every man in the world is descended from Y-Adam, a man who lived in the same area ca 60-70,000 years ago, isn't it completely illogical to regard someone who is literally your distant cousin as some sort of sub-human, based on the fact that their skin is darker or lighter than yours, or the various other markers of 'race'?

 

[Diode-Man]

1) Is it ethical to teach children that God only loves White People?
2) What dos this say about the God they worship?
3) Is it unethical to say God doesn't love brown skinned or brown eyed people?
4) Would it be morally acceptable to suggest God would love brown skinned people, if they changed their appearance to having white skin (say by bleaching it?)

MII

1) They are merely dooming their own minds to a limited perspective

2) Satan

3) God loves all people

4) The God of the KKK has a deep love for Michael Jackson

 

[Xylene]

1)
4) The God of the KKK has a deep love for Michael Jackson

Well, Michael Jackson has a deep love for Michael Jackson, at least...the deeper the better, in his opinion...

 

[swarm]

Considering that every woman in the world is descended from Mitochondrial Eve

Who is believed to have lived about 170,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago.

Misconception: The Mitochondrial Eve and Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) are the same

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the MRCA of all humans. The MRCA's offspring have led to all living humans via sons and daughters, but Mitochondrial Eve must be traced only through female lineages, so she is estimated to have been much older than the MRCA.

Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived around 120,000 years ago at the latest. The theoretical MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago.[9] The most recent common ancestor (MRCA) is the most recent person whom all of humanity can count as one of their ancestors. Because each person's number of ancestors double (ignoring overlaps) with each generation backwards, the MRCA of all humanity occurs relatively recently in history, even when we take into account ancestor overlap. The MRCA answers the question, "Do any of my four grandparents overlap with any of your four grandparents? If not, then do any of my 8 great grandparents overlap with any of your 8 great grandparents?" Between one-hundred and two-hundred generations back, a single person will appear in every living person's family tree. However, each person has only one mitochondrial ancestor with each generation backwards because each person inherits their mitochondria from their mother. The question of "when did Mitochondrial Eve live?" is answering the question of "When does my mother's mother's mother ... overlap with everyone else's mother's mother's mother ... (all the way up the female lineage)?"


Misconception: Mitochrondrial Eve was the only woman alive at that time

Allan Wilson's naming Mitochondrial Eve after Eve of the Genesis creation account has led to some misunderstandings among the general public. A common misconception is that Mitochondrial Eve was the only living human female of her time. Had this been the case, humanity would have long since become extinct due to an extreme example of a population bottleneck.

Indeed, not only were many women alive at the same time as Mitochondrial Eve but many of them have living descendants through their sons. While the mtDNA of these women is gone, their Nuclear genes are present in today's population.

What distinguishes Mitochondrial Eve (and her matrilineal ancestors) from all her female contemporaries is that she has a purely matrilineal line of descent to all humans alive today, whereas all her female contemporaries with descendants alive today have at least one male in every line of descent. Because mitochondrial DNA is only passed through matrilineal descent, all humans alive today have mitochondrial DNA that is traceable back to Mitochondrial Eve.

Furthermore, it can be shown that every female contemporary of Mitochondrial Eve either has no living descendant today or is an ancestor to all living people. Starting with 'the' MRCA at around 3,000 years ago, one can trace all ancestors of the MRCA backward in time. At every ancestral generation, more and more ancestors (via both paternal and maternal lines) of MRCA are found. These ancestors are by definition also common ancestors of all living people. Eventually, there will be a point in the past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point and is estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Since Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived more than a hundred thousand years before the identical ancestors point, every woman contemporary to her is either not an ancestor of any living people, or a common ancestor of all living people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve