The Gay Fray has been one of those exemplary disasters when the behavior was on pretty much glorified display. In its natural, human evolutionary context, the fundamental behavior has its role, but within our life in civilized society, the American version is largely neurotic. This is an interesting framework with observable history. There is, within the framework itself, a question of how its substance operates and flows: Previously, defined unnaturalness has been a social-normative disqualifier. The variables in dynamic flux are the definitions of "natural" and "normative", and history would probably provide at least a few examples allowing us to pick apart "moral" and "qualifier". In theory, yes, we should be able to document the erosion of segregation over the course of time, but that point becomes very complicated rather quickly depending on how we intend to approach it. Disruption over the course of time is an unaccounted variable in your framework. We can in fact look to the Gay Fray: • We might observe Population [P] and Subpopulation [S]. ▸ P describes S as "unnatural", asserts S disqualified. ▸ Science informs S is not unnatural per definition asserted by P, thus invalidating disqualification. ▸ P laments "natural" as excluded subspecies, accuses S of excluding P by declaring "unnaturalness" a "form of social normative moral qualifier". The result of this sort of process can be pretty spectacular; to wit, if I suggest it really does seem reasonable to expect society should be spared Pat Robertson's rape fantasies↱, the point in our moment is to observe the results of invalidating the disqualification. Population A tried to disqualify Subpopulation H according to the projections of Subpopulation C, which in turn projects itself as Population A. And when A lost, C freaked out pretty much to type: It doesn't matter what custom you've got, it doesn't matter what holy thing that you worship and adore, the gays are going to get it. They're going to make you conform to them. You are going to say you like anal sex, you like oral sex, you like bestiality, you like anything you can think of, whatever it is. And sooner or later you are going to have to conform your religious beliefs the group of some aberrant thing. It won't stop at homosexuality. ―Pat Robertson↱ In that panicked quote from 2015, you can see televangelist Pat Robertson projecting a rape fantasy—("it doesn't matter"; "they're going to make you"; "you like", "you like", "you like")—and then invoking un-naturalness—("aberrant thing")—as "social normative moral qualifier" ("have to conform"; "won't stop"). And we might also remember that it sometimes seems ironic that, as such, Subpopulation C both manufactures and consumes "social normative moral qualifiers", and the really fun pedantry is whether conforming to God's will, as such, defines God as natural or unnatural. To the one, Christians fought about this question, coming to a head at Nicaea; and they have fought about it ever since, despite ostensibly settling the question in 325 CE. To the other, there was an episode four years ago with Christians in Virginia↱ turning away an eight year-old girl for not looking enough like a girl. And there are plenty of other examples; the Timberlake episode is just so blatant we can actually see the moving parts on display. So it is true, we should be able to document the erosion of segregation over the course of time; and, yes, that can get complicated rather quickly for the sake of disruption. The proverbial slow arc of history that bends toward Justice is, in fact, slow precisely for the sake of disruption. Which does bring us back to some sketch of "the dissasociative process that seems to be normalised in human behaviour to re-define non congruent concepts as exterior non qualifiers" insofar as the most part of the normalization of such behavioral processes has to do with their ubiquity and neurotic influence; we can box such behavior in and classify it at least generally, but there is still great range for circumstantial variation. The underlying driver, at a basic human level, is amorphous fear of unknown circumstance occurring in a context of comparative disempowerment, such that the "disassociative process […] normalised in human behavior [redefining] noncongruent concepts as exterior nonqualifiers" create an experience of empowerment. There are, however, any number of variables about how I read your formulation, including "disassociative" [dissociative/disassociating], congruency, and exterior nonqualifiers; the one almost doesn't make a difference, or doesn't unless it does; the latter, though, can create enough vagary that the prior paragraph, for instance, might have nothing to do with anything.
Nope Names for so called "races" (which do not exist) are therefore fake names for a fake non existent condition None of the fake so called "races" can be measured and quantified The so called races are nothing more than a figment of imagination based on superficial differences, and have no substance in reality ONE RACE - HUMAN Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Of course they can. Do a double blind study. Have people identify asian, black, indian and caucasian races. If they can do so reliably, then there is proof that races are identifiable and quantifiable. OK! Perhaps we should do that for more things. It would certainly simplify things. One kind of food - FOOD! One kind of music - MUSIC! One kind of drink - DRINK!
Cute idea but not objective Now your being silly Just for my own curiosity I say ONE RACE - HUMAN Can you put a guestimate number of how many races there are please? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don't be daft. You are on the record about making disparaging comments about "foreigners". There is something inherently repulsive about a racist disguising their myopic world view. I guess it depends on the degree of being enraptured by your master ethnicity vs the play of appeasing values of political correctness for saving face.
Proofs are up to you Names please. Since you seem to be wanting to drag this out I may as well ask if "tall" is one of the races ie anyone say over 6 foot or 2 meters or perhaps "short" races. If they are not in your 4 what are the names of your groupings? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
yes you read it correctly. ...my use was to illicit the poles of the distopian concept of use to obfiscate the nature of the fundermental human drives and the physical effect on social grouping & segragation by way of elucidated proxy moral codes. your post was a joy to read. i had fogotten quite how gifted you are. side note, now i am pondering the normalcy of rape fantasies in a consentual paradigm and how they play out as a fundermental personality driver for such like conservative religous extremists. though that is quite a potentially grotesque play in the ID(to perceptualise) i shall choose my time to delve accordingly.
Ah, so you can't do it. So none of the fake so called different drinks can be measured and quantified. That there are different drinks - pale ale, IPA, wine, water - is nothing more than a figment of your imagination based on superficial differences, and have no substance in reality. Black (origin - Africa) Asian (origin - eastern Asia) Australian (origin - Australia) Caucasian (origin - northern Europe) Nope.
There are a number of rules I apply to myself in various forums I don't do stupid I don't do complicated maths I don't play chess with pigeons I'm out Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There are openly transgender and gay idols as well as people in korea. There are bars/clubs that cater to them as well as bisexual clubs. Its not as intolerant as is assumed though the marriage aspect hasnt been legalized. Ironicly, koreans are less judgemental about affection shown between males too such as kissing and hugging in public and dont necessarily stigmatize them as gay. Actually, there are plenty of idols that do and women find it seductive/normal/explorative/enlightening expression similar to how males in the west like watching women being affectionate with eachother. They can be straight and still do that. For instance, Heechul loves dressing like a woman sometimes but he also loves and dates women. Some do it to celebrate women and to flatter them. There is something sexy about males who are in touch with their feminine side or respect it that much. Contrary to what males may think, hyper male stereotypes are not attractive to most women because they lack sensitivity. You arent going to see such things on american tv and will be stigmatized as to gender preference. They are attractive so why would women be upset? They are obviously well bonded bros thats like a mutual admiration society. Its not raunchy either. Most all of them have girlfriends anyways.
I'm not sure how you get from "made up" to "not REAL". Lots of stuff people "make up" is real, after all. I listed some, above. Sure they can. They can be counted as percentages of a given population, for starters. Depends on your society - in the US there are five: black, brown, red, yellow, white. This is getting confused in recent years, with various misfit ethnicities immigrating, but it held for two centuries prior. For a long time yellow and brown were held to be short races, black and red and white to be tall races. That has proved untenable in recent years. You might want to revisit that one - it reads as more of a goal than an established policy.
To lazy to answer point by point. **"***** While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[5] or simplistic way,[11] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and (as far as applicable) subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[12][13] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) *********** ONE RACE Many made up catogories - not real as a RACE Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why are you posting about biological taxonomy? That has almost nothing to do with sociological reality. Here is a more relevant quote from your source: There is no biological taxonomic significance to religions or language groups either. Are you going to declare that religions and languages are not real?
I guess I have a fixed view of what is real ie - for something to be real REAL it actually has to exist and stretching the ie it has to have a physicality Much of what is actually CONSIDERED real are CONCEPTS They exist in the mind as ideas and thoughts BUT do not have physicality - ie (again) not real REAL If you consider religion / language and imI guessing other concepts as being real OK. I don't Sure they are subjects worthy of contemplation, study, research but at the end of the day bottom line blah blah blah, no physicality - not real REAL It works for me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok. Do you understand that taxonomic categories in biology - such as are established by scientific research and classification - are concepts? That they exist in human minds and nowhere else?
Sure concepts BUT backed up by physical examples of what is being classified Try putting the race classifications you contend exist and note how many overlap Yes there are minor disagreement within taxonomy (I think the main one concerns viruses - are they live or dead or a mix) and a few variables (somewhat like the classification of books) If you take DNA from each of your so called race groups you will find they ALL come back as HUMAN - if you check the so called hereditary make up - well that's another story - vast differences However hereditary make up does not a race make. Nor do vague social groupings Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As are the sociological race classifications - Barack Obama, for example, and his wife, and their children, are classified as "black" in the US system. Most US citizens can classify most other US citizens by race based on a couple of photographs or a few seconds of observation at a distance of ten meters. There have been recent major revisions in the biological taxonomy of most of the living beings whose taxonomy has been carefully investigated using the new genetic techniques. These revisions have involved every level of the taxonomic hierarchy in biology - including the discovery of an entirely new domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea, joining the two known (Bacteria and Eukaryota), into which hundreds of species, genuses, classes, orders, and phyla, formerly misclassified as Bacteria, have been reclassified in recent years. Nothing about the beings themselves, or any physical fact of the world, changed. Only the conceptual, abstract, theory-aligned, classification system. Nothing vague about them. They are hardcore, significant, consequential, verifiable, even legally established, "social groupings".
