:rofl: Thing is, people who are mentally impaired by an actual illness (like Alzheimer's, etc.) cannot do those regular tasks. That's precisely the point. People often confuse actual medical disorders with behaviour that is within normal bounds.Or is that all it takes? Being able to name some animals and draw a cube? ;) — Michael
Hmmm okay, but wasn't it the technological superiority of the Western Europeans at that time that allowed them to subjugate the rest of the world? They may have justified it as white supremacy in some cases (though that depends, because with regards to Eastern Europeans & Russia, it couldn't be justified as White Supremacy). But it was technological superiority that really permitted it to happen.What you would hear me say is that there is a legacy from the past, from the colonisation of the Americas, Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, by (white) Europeans, which was justified by an explicit doctrine of white supremacy. — unenlightened
I agree that the attitudes persisted - they were there in the 60s, 70s, 80s - but those years are long gone now! I really think we have moved beyond that, especially with the internet and the ease of access people now have to others of different nationalities, skin colors, and to knowledge as well.But can only think that by covering your eyes and ears to the vast amount of evidence from the media from social scientists, that the attitudes persist, as one would expect them to if one understood the evolution of social attitudes at all. — unenlightened
So a professor getting fired based on skin color isn't a serious case of racism?And a really good example of this persistence is the way, in this very thread, one incident in what the article calls 'a historically black college', of alleged discrimination against whites is taken as of comparable weight to the discrimination against blacks. It is particularly ironic that the black colleges were explicitly set up to educate newly freed slaves who had previously been forbidden by law from being educated. — unenlightened
That one. Clearly, Obama as he was quoted by Trump thought that it is laughable that someone would rig America's elections. — Agustino
WASHINGTON — President Obama ridiculed Donald J. Trump on Tuesday for saying that the presidential election was rigged against him, telling Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, to “stop whining and go try to make his case” to win more votes than Hillary Clinton.
At a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said, “I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.”
...
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump did not heed Mr. Obama’s warning. While he did not address the president directly, he repeated his claims of an election stolen through voter fraud — singling out, with no evidence, African-American communities as the likely culprits of the fraud.
...
Mrs. Clinton was off the campaign trail on Tuesday, preparing for her final debate with Mr. Trump on Wednesday, so it fell to Mr. Obama to rebut Mr. Trump’s assertions. The president did so with obvious relish.
There is no evidence, he said, that a presidential election has ever been rigged. He said there was little indication that it could be, given that elections are run by state and local authorities, with people from both parties supervising polling sites and ballot counting.
“The notion that somehow if Mr. Trump loses Florida, it is because of those people that you have to watch out for,” he said, his voice thick with sarcasm. “That is both irresponsible and, by the way, doesn’t really show the kind of leadership and toughness that you want out of a president.”
The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.
“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.
Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.
Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyberweapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.
My guess is that if any of the other races got ahold of technological superiority first and learned to exploit fossil fuels and other natural resources, they would have subjugated the rest of the world themselves, and would have justified it in similar ways. What do you reckon? — Agustino
those years are long gone now! I really think we have moved beyond that, especially with the internet and the ease of access people now have to others of different nationalities, skin colors, and to knowledge as well. — Agustino
So a professor getting fired based on skin color isn't a serious case of racism? — Agustino
Yeah, that is true - China also happened to be the world's largest economy for much of world history. But at the same time, they did not learn how to make use of natural resources on an industrial scale and in a scientific way in the manner, Western Europeans did during and before the Enlightenment. Why didn't they? What made this "scientific revolution" possible in Europe?Who knows, it's certainly possible, but China invented gunpowder, paper, and all kinds of stuff without feeling the need. It's obviously not a racial thing, but it is a cultural thing, and who knows where any culture might have gone if...? — unenlightened
There might be remnants, but I don't particularly see the kinds of systemic racism where people are frequently fired from their jobs based on racism, and similar issues.I do assure you those years have not gone, but continue. Even dinosaurs remain as fossils, and in the imagination, and in the way they influenced the development of the Earth, and that was a very long time ago, before even my time. — unenlightened
Right, well I agree that they don't suffer a widespread disadvantage because of skin color, at least not in the Western countries. But then, I don't think that other races suffer such a disadvantage based on skin color (there are some exceptions in certain areas, etc. - I'm talking just by and large) in the West.if white people suffer a widespread disadvantage in the culture because of their skin colour, then the answer is that they do not and never have done. — unenlightened
China also happened to be the world's largest economy for much of world history. But at the same time, they did not learn how to make use of natural resources on an industrial scale and in a scientific way in the manner, Western Europeans did during and before the Enlightenment. Why didn't they? What made this "scientific revolution" possible in Europe? — Agustino
British people never treated me very well because I was a foreigner — Agustino
What were the slaves used for? What kind of work did they do? And why didn't earlier peoples, which were arguably a lot better organised than the European countries at that time (thinking now about the Roman Empire) make use of slaves and achieve a scientific revolution?This handy timeline makes it clear that the slave trade predates the Enlightenment, and anything one can seriously call industry as we think of it. — unenlightened
:rofl: But I thought you're the guy who was all about honest talk...Well some of us might have other reasons for treating you badly, but let's try not to go there. :fire: — unenlightened
What were the slaves used for? What kind of work did they do? And why didn't earlier peoples, which were arguably a lot better organised than the European countries at that time (thinking now about the Roman Empire) make use of slaves and achieve a scientific revolution? — Agustino
I have trouble following what you mean here.I'd guess that the Romans were unable to get far enough away from their own influence to have that overwhelming advantage that enables a total subjugation — unenlightened
So... you are an authentic opportunist? :lol:There's a time for honesty, and a time for moderation; I believe in whichever suits me at the moment. :grimace: — unenlightened
I have trouble following what you mean here. — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.