I respect anyone's choice to do or not do anything they choose. I thought the same way about it until I started to wonder if I wanted to go to my grave not knowing what it felt like out of some stubborn desire to win an imaginary "drug free" sticker at the moment of my death.

I saw some people who smoked it and were a) not addicted or changed by the act and b) functioned excellently and contributed greatly to society (in the form of music and literature and art). So I tried it, and I'd say it taught me a way to cope with my brain and how it works, so I can fight long term depression.

I'm sorry that he didn't stress that there are absolutely no causal links established either between psychosis or education. I still strongly believe that there will be a link between psychosis or mental illness and the willingness or desire to try it - which in turn would give them medicinal relief and in effect they end up unwittingly self medicating. We know it has medicinal qualities as did our ancestors. I think that the link between poverty and social elements greatly affect the uptake rate, having grown up both in council estate (very poor) areas and middle class areas between parents I can vouch for that disparity personally.

I think it's an obvious logical conclusion, and all I need is evidence to disprove it. Until then I certainly will not apologise for using something that has been of the earth for millions of years over something mixed and concocted by pharmaceutical companies that have documented side effects, overdose risk, and actual addiction.

What no-one seems to realise is 'Native Americans' refers to a fringe group of radical atavists and racialists. Of the descendants of those who survived their natural displacement by a more advanced culture, the overwhelming majority have integrated and interbred with that culture. The only people left who still call themselves 'Native American' are a vanishing minority of ancestor-worshipping crybaby whackjobs.

Sounds like a very large simplification for something. You can't honestly think that the reaction was due to one single incident? And if you're sensible enough to realise that, are you genuinely suggesting that the black community is appropriately represented in prison and crime statistics?

Try and avoid racism when you reply.

I think you're living in a dream world. The abolition of slavery is only a generation removed, do you really think that many of these people have had the same opportunities as you have? Whether it be by design, by accident or what have you? I imagine your close ancestors were allowed to accumulate property and status in a way that their ancestors weren't.

That's not a recommendation for guilt, merely that unless you've lived their life in their world you have absolutely no idea what it's like, and you will only ever understand childhood and development (which form your opinions and beliefs) from your own perspective. So don't be too quick to judge others for their situation. I'd like to see how you fared if you grew up in the same environment.

You make it sound so simple to vote for black people... as though it's that simple, as though the democratic system in USA and UK alike isn't riddled with corruption, where money is power, and everyone is opposed to changing the status quo? How many of those in power know what life is like in a black community, to know what the problems are and how deep the divide runs between them and the councillors for their place of residence? ... I've got so many criticisms i don't know where to begin. You've got some points, but they're buried.

*promote the ancestor of Courage the Cowardly Dog

This situation is sad and ironic.

The area known as Judea was renamed Palestine during the time of Roman emperor Hadrian.
The residents of Judea/Palestine were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity around 400 ad by the Romans, and later in the 700's ad were forced to convert to Islam.
They never left. They just changed religions. The children of the Jews of the new testament, are the Palestinians of today (now practicing Islam).

Many years passed, the Eastern Roman empire resided over much of the area, ruled out of Turkey, and the region was more or less all-right. Along the way it changed names to the Ottoman empire.

After WW1, the Ottoman empire shrank dramatically, and renamed itself to simply Turkey. However it still held some lands that were not actually Turkish (eg. ~Syria), and was still a mini-empire.
Around this general time period, Palestine became a British colony.

During WW2, there were many displaced Europeans of Jewish faith that had nowhere to go.
(*Britain didn't want them either, most places didn't. Anti-Semitism was rather common at the time. Even the Nazi eugenics policy wasn't much criticized at the time. re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics. Actually, the Nazi's strong association with anti-semitism + all the anti-Nazi propaganda during WW2, helped cure a lot of anti-semitism in Europe.).
In the late 1940's Britain split occupied Palestine into smaller-Palestine+Israel, and assisted in relocating WW2 displaced Europeans of Jewish faith to Israel. Which at face value made sense, because "the bible says Jews are from Judea". However the area from which was established Israel was more or less ~devoid of followers of the Jewish faith in the 1940's.
And that's the irony! The British creation of Israel involved taking land from Palestinians (i.e. The children of the original Jews of Judea), and giving it to Europeans of Jewish faith (foreign immigrants).

That then resulted in middle-eastern resentment and backlash over western invasion/occupation/seisure-of-land. This resentment against immigrating European Jews caused 'Jews at large' to be discriminated against throughout the middle-east, and that in turn led to a migration wave of regional-Jews from the surrounding areas into Israel.
This resulted in a concentration of Jewish-faithed immigrants of European and middle-eastern ethnicity, all in Israel - further displacing the original residents.

Basically, in the end, the original people of Judea were kicked out of their homes and their lands given to immigrants... and they really resent it. While in the mean time the immigrants acclaim to have a god given right to be there because there is some old paper that says that people of their faith are from the area.

Ta-da.

Britain could have just sent Europeans of Jewish faith to Palestine, and made it an integrated nation.
But nope, they had to displace people and create a bunch more problems.
Gee, thanks Britain.
I pretty much face-palm when I hear "this conflict is thousands of years old" (when it's only been ~66 years).


Note :
I make the distinction between ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish.
I use the phrase "Europeans of Jewish faith" to clarify that these were displaced Europeans, who may have had an ancestor or two way way way up the family tree that was from Judea - but were otherwise European and of Jewish faith - who may have lived in an area with little mingling with outsiders, and hence a visually distinct appearance (i.e. what made it possible to make visual caricatures of their people, such as : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_%281940_film%29)
You can also play semantics with "what is ethnically Jewish, when the ethnicity is labelled after the faith", etc.

There's also the geopolitical aspect. Israel is the only "Western" nation in the middle-east. Given that the area is globally significant in terms of resources, that makes Israel a critically important ally. So the rhetoric will always lean.

Personally, I wonder if the things that European Jews suffered during WW2, didn't create some mental/emotional baggage that today plays itself out with how they treat Palestinians. Sort of a "I don't care about your suffering, because I've been through worse" kind of situation.

However, I understand how Israel does not want an open integrated society with Palestinians. The Jewish population is rather small, and in an integrated society they would be such a small proportion that they would essentially be bred out of existence within a few generations. For those who wish to preserve their culture, that's 'kind of a big deal'.

-scheherazade

It's a clever rationalization of hypocrisy. If it's going to be taboo to observe patterns in groups of people demarcated by visible characteristics they were born with, be consistent about it. But I'd argue against that taboo.

What makes racism bad is treating people as specimens of a group rather than unique individuals. Group averages may differ slightly but there's tons of overlap. Common usage of the word "racism" unfortunately conflates a moral aspect (how to treat people) with an epistemological aspect (dogma that all groups are created exactly equal in every way). Epistemology shouldn't be moralized. I could give you lots of examples of sociological and psychological research getting muddled on account of an inflexible dogma that there couldn't be any heritable differences between groups other than the obvious superficial ones. I'd rather conceive of the word racism as a verb describing harmful actions towards people due to their group membership, not a noun denoting a thoughtcrime or speechcrime. Like church and state, or science and religion, epistemology and morality don't go together.

A priori based on generation times and mutation rates you should expect there could be 1/10 as much variation between historically isolated groups of humans as there is between breeds of dogs, since the most recent common ancestor of all domestic dogs is half as far back as humans' most recent common ancestor is (or rather was before 16th and 17th century explorers spread their sperm across the globe) but dogs breed a lot faster. Breeds of dogs demonstrably vary in many behavioral and psychological traits. It's not far fetched to suppose that a variety of environments over the past 100,000 years of humanity pushed population means of behavioral traits in various directions.

"I would have preferred no deaths." Agreed.

"I would have preferred no slavery in the first place." Even better.

"But if 620000 deaths is the cost for millions of people and over 100 million of their ancestors to live in freedom"

It need not have been this way. But it happened. That's not the moral bankruptcy.
Preferring the maiming and death of 620,000+ people (the overwhelming majority of whom were not even slaveowners), over freeing the slaves through payment (simply because you don't like the idea of it!), yes, that's morally bankrupt.

You may say, "well paying for them" was not an option. But the objection was that you find paying for liberation more repugnant than the slaughter of 620,000.. which is what I call morally bankrupt..

(Somehow, I doubt that you could be so morally bankrupt and believe such things -- and still function as a human being -- so it seems that you may just be trolling, simply to disagree with me, in which case, this non-debate is beneath me.).

Lol, I'm being accused of moral bankruptcy by someone who thinks slave owners should have been compensated.... right.

I would have preferred no deaths. I would have preferred no slavery in the first place.

But if 620000 deaths is the cost for millions of people and over 100 million of their ancestors to live in freedom... I'll take that.

Exactly, you didn't get the point. It isn't about punishing people for being hypocritical idiots, it's about calling them out for it and making clear that behaviour isn't ok.
Let's stick with the wedding cake example for a moment. It's not about forcing somebody to make a shitty cake a dozen other people can do as well or having them pay damages for percieved (by lawyers or pissed off grooms) emotional trauma. I would be perfectly fine with it if a judge ordered those kind of businessowners to just hang some Westboro Baptist style posters on their storefront and call it a day. At least then everybody knew with what kind of people they're dealing with.
The problem isn't that people with shitty opinions exist, they'll be always there, the problem is if we let them act as if it's normal and fine and not adress it.
You would crucify them if they'd say that sex with children is ok, you'd call them out if they were telling you black people should be glad their slave ancestors were treated so well. Shit, just try to open a mosque one block away from ground zero and someone will talk to you about that too.
Why is it wrong then if you confront them when they put gay relationships on the same level as people fucking their dogs or tell us that two fathers can't raise a son?
I was serious when I said I admire the Phelps familiy for their honesty. They're horrible, disgusting people but at least they made up their minds and stick to their beliefs. They won't come to us calling homosexuality a "controversial lifestyle" where you can have "differing opinions" than all the "gay friends they have". You fuck a bloke in the ass you go to hell, that's it. No cures, no dicussions. It's antisocial, cruel and stupid but at least, they very least, it's honest.
Those anti discrimination laws are just crude tool to protrect yourself from their stupid hatred. Not everybody lives in San Francisco where you call your transgender girlfriends for a protest sit in at the local homophobic bakery. Some people have only big brother on their side in their hometown.
It's not about getting your way, it's about stopping others from continuing taking a shit on you.

Sorry sir, it's my native tongue, not a second-language, and only the most pathetic of my ancestors are from 'Great Britain.'

My high school mascot growing up was the "Grand River Renegade"

Effectively native chief. When I was in my third year of high school, there was talk about changing it to something else because it was deemed offensive.

I honestly, to this day, can't understand why that was offensive. The reason we had a native renegade as our mascot? Because it was freaking badass! It wasn't mocking the first nationers in any way, shape, or form. If anything, in my mind, it was actually a way of showing support, going "Dude, your ancestors were awesome enough that we're making it our mascot."

Now, the term redskin, yeah, I can see that as offensive, it does seem to fall under the racial slur side of things. But just because that's what the mascot of the team is, it doesn't specifically mean anything disrespectful to whatever it's representing (although again, granted, the name may need a change.)

returning* to his evolutionary roots, eh?

..also, why is everyone (or maybe just people who produce pop science content) obsessed with octopus intelligence? Like many cool things that octopus do, this is complex behavior.. but likely innate, and not a sign of intelligence.


*Dear inevitable trolls: I do not mean to imply that cephalopods evolved from bivalves, only that they had a molluscan ancestor with an external shell.

People can't just learn from their ancestors mistakes. Instead of taking all their fortune and building something intelligent, sustainable, and long-term, they practically employ slave labor to construct yet another architectural representation of the human-ego.

and to think that if they looked back far enough into their genealogy, they would discover that their ancestors ARE black africans! and given that hitler's family were jewish, i can see the resemblance. their stupidity is unbelievable!

I can't downvote, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd go with "monarchs just as bad if not worse as Hitler" as the bit of your comment that would be most likely to draw a "challenge" as you put it. You kinda godwin'd the whole thread right out of the gate which is a bit ... trollish.

I suppose one could maybe make a reasonable attempt at justifying that statement with regards to a few specific past monarchs, but even though I couldn't care less about the British monarchy I think it would be rather unfair to hold the current Queen accountable for what some of her predecessors may have done many, many years before she was born.

I'm an American citizen with ancestors originally from Germany, so by those standards I should personally be held to blame for slavery, Little Bighorn and smallpox blankets, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, AND the holocaust.