Is political correctness anti-scientific?

Post Reply New Topic

forensic anthropologists don't strongly defend it they just have noticed that "racial" phenotypical traits
also show up in hard tissue. You can guess where someone is from by looking at their bones with about the
same (but usually a little worse) accuracy as looking at them with their flesh on. Meaning they get it right some times.
but is more a game of "Hey this skull looks like it is from China" "no its from mexico but yeah he does look Chinese"

the same convo people have about some folks from Mexico with their skin on.
in Arizona we used the term of the Asian persuasion but I think prolly racist so I deny I every did it.

Simple, I'm in favor of giving all races equal rights, because all people have essentially limitless potential if they put their mind and heart to things. However I'm not deluded into thinking that the differences between ethnic groups are completely superficial.

I think race exists but I think our categories are largely incorrect. Africa for example probably has hundreds of 'races'. You have Bantu people, who are all over the map genetically, the dwarf-like Pygmies, the Khoisan, the partially Asian people of Madagascar and then North Africa's indigenous Berbers who are genetically close to Europeans. Then you have east Africans who are dark skinned but have completely different features from West Africans and really look more like dark skinned Middle Easterners. To call all those people 'black' or 'Negroid' is ridiculous.

Of course a lot of ethnic groups are a mix of two or more different general race groups, especially in desert regions like North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, who are largely descended from people who migrated from greener areas. The Uyghur people of western China are a perfect example, some of them look like white Europeans, some look kind of Middle Eastern or Indian and then others look Asian.

I agree with you though that races are not anywhere close to species or even sub-species; I would say they are more like breeds, though maybe even less pronounced than that. Probably only the Pygmies and Khoisan would even start to approach being a sub-species of Homo sapiens.

Now there is an anti-science pansy-assed PC statement if ever there was one.

Lets put it to the test shall we.

Can I bench press a billion tons? No. What about if I put my heart and mind to it? Still no.
Can I teleport myself to the top of Olympus Mons? No.
Can I predict what the winning lottery numbers will be next week? No.
Can I cure diseases with happy thoughts? No.
Can I float like a butterfly? No.
Can I sting like a bee? No.
Can I hold a normal conversation with a random person like a checkout girl? No.
Can I form a sentence while making eye contact? No.
Can I chose to not get old and die by eating lots of broccoli? No.


Is the reason that I can't do these things because I am failing to apply myself and achieve my 'essentially limitless potential' or is the reason I can't do things because fact based reality is a very different place to whatever fantastical utopian delusion you dreamt up to justify your statement above?

Many religions require denying facts. Do not use the Book of Genesis as guide to how the earth came to be.

ruveyn

I got the point that your statement came from an atheist point of view. I just thought that it was too far-reaching.

Natural? You say it is natural because 1500 species do it?

Do you realize that we are the only species that cares about sexual morality? And why do we bully others who are polygamists, incestuous, zoophiles, etc when we accept homosexuality? I have yet to see a good argument to bash someone because of a weird fetish but not for homosexuality at the same time.

The reason homosexuality isn't natural is because it is infertile. The reason for sex is to create people. Homosexuality can't create people, so it is unnatural. Even if infertile sex is natural, I think sexuality should be limited to creating people.

On one hand - yes - its anti-scientific and anti-intellectual but I think its done knowingly so in that its one form of anti-science beating back what's seen as an even worse form of anti-intellectualism, ie. racism, and its perhaps an attempt to talk down to the level of the common denominator and stop all conversation on a "Because I say so!" sort of parenting manner.

The problem is, people who are past it, over, above, and beyond it are just as strangled for their ability to discuss problems without having the same 'kill a fly with a sledge hammer' blunt instrument brought down on them.

Being that it was seen as a necessary evil for a particular period of time, much like affirmative action, I think its important to realize that at least in the US its still less than 50 years that many ethnicities have had equal rights, hence we're still living in a very akward time in social history but, simultaneously, I think in just a few generation's time political correctness will have completely exceeded its usefulness. I think for most of us who are in our twenties or thirties right now will live to see the day when it gets peeled back and ended because its been heading toward more harm than good for a long time and as we speak it seems like people in this new decade are taking it less seriously than they did in the 2000's and in the 2000's less seriously than they did in the 90's.

You hit it on the nose. Thank you.

Yes I do say it is a natural phenomena because it is widely observable in nature. Kinda the definition of natural?

Define:natural - 'Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.'

We have not deliberately created homosexual behaviours in animals and yet we can readily observe the behaviour in lots and lots of species in their natural environment, doing what they do naturally. Therefore by the very definition of the word 'natural', homosexual behaviour is natural.

I feel no impulse to pick on or judge people for their sexual predilections.

If sexuality should be limited to creating people I take you believe the only time intercourse should take place is when it causes pregnancy? So people should only have sex a couple of times in their life? People who use contraception are perverts? People who are infertile and have sex are perverts?

Let me rephrase: If it is in a heterosexual marriage, and it has the potential to create people, it is ok. Contraception is moot because condoms break open inside of people all the time.

Homosexuality isn't love, it's lust.

So you have never masturbated then?
Or given/received oral sex?
Handjob?

These things are perverse right?



Failure rate of condoms is about 1%, the majority of failures are 'user error' i.e. drunken muppets or long fingernails or deliberate sabotage etc the mechanical properties of condoms are far more reliable when used correctly. condoms are also not the only form of contraception.



And you know this how?

Peer reviewed paper please?
Linky to the DSM?
Nice brainscan study perhaps?

Or just plain old homophobia?

What nonsense. Homosexuals have the same capacity for love as anyone else. The sex part is not necessary, it's a bonus. There are couples with profound love for one another who don't do it at all (varying reasons- often medical) from both the heterosexual and homosexual communities.

Also, what about infertile and post-menopausal women? Are old people not allowed to get it on?

That's one of the reasons sex evolved. At this point, it is wise to thwart that reason at least sometimes, given how many people are currently on the planet. The other reason- for people, at least- is social bonding. (This may apply to other animals too. I don't know.) The hormones that give us the "falling in love" and later the "bonded to my mate" feelings are responsible for that. This is a useful evolutionary development given how dependent human babies are. Single motherhood works best as an option for species with offspring that are soon independent. Humans can sustain it only because of a vast social framework. And that social framework arose in part because of the bonding aspects of sex.



It is found amongst many non-human species, thus natural.




I don't. There are lots of people already so sex for other purposes is fine.


If there were some sort of apocalypse that reduced the human population down to something like only a million globally then it would make sense to reorient sex primarily to reproduction.

Our original sexual taboos were all created with an eye towards maximizing births and minimizing birth defects (taboo against incest) while allowing men to ensure that their resources went only towards children they had fathered. Those taboos are still in full force in some places, greatly weakened in other places. In many places, some of the taboos have shifted towards protection against exploitation and abuse- thus the taboos against incest (which today is more about preventing abuse than preventing birth defects), sex below a certain age, sex with animals and forced sex.

Probably the weakest taboo internationally is the one against contraception. The taboo against contraception and the taboo against homosexuality are both to maximize births, which is no longer necessary.* Nevertheless the taboo against homosexuality is proving more entrenched than the one against contraception. Even so, it is weakening.

*Cultures with no taboo against homosexuality still had social structures in place to maximize birth. It seems that bisexuality was encouraged to accomodate this; sex with men but also with wives and concubines.

Do you people know what marriage is for? Taming the sex instinct. Limiting it to heterosexuals to create and raise children.

Also, what is so bad about sex with animals, or incest, or polygamy if condoms work so well? If homosexuality is ok?

Did you hear those words coming from a pulpit by any chance?