zapatos

Can you tell me how you link racism to genetics?

Are you saying that rockets don't actually work?

I don't believe that is quite what they are saying. Their argument is more along the lines of: Both homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot help liking who they like; they are born that way. Additionally, both homosexuals and heterosexuals have learned behavior, and being reasoning beings, can change their learned likes and dislikes. One example of a learned behavior is a prejudice against homosexuals, which is often exhibited by expressing a disgust of homosexual sex acts.

The first. And if it is on television I'll watch it like I'd watch any scene. I think I'd only frown at the thought of doing it myself. I agree the second behavior certainly sounds like prejudice. Thinking back in time to my youth, I believe I used to have a bit of a reaction to the sight of two men kissing. I also heard and told homophobic jokes, although I didn't really give them much thought. I mean it wasn't mean from my perspective, just a stupid joke, kind of like we'd tell Polish, or blonde jokes. It was only after gaining some maturity that I realized what the jokes were really saying. It is quite likely that my earlier strong-ish reaction to two men kissing was a learned behavior that went away with my youth.

The show Fear Factor was popular because it showed people doing things that others found 'distasteful', or whatever word we want to use. For example eating insects. Is that being prejudiced in some way? How is that different from finding gay, male sex distasteful. For the record, I fully admit to not enjoying the sight of two men kissing, whereas I do enjoy seeing two women kissing. I don't see how that has to do with power, nor how that makes me prejudiced. Feels more like a specific sexual preference for me. Just as some people like seeing women in high heels squishing bugs, which also feels distasteful to me without me being prejudiced.

What is your definition of "judging"? I've always felt "judging" required a conscious decision, whereas "distaste" is not necessarily arrived at with forethought. IOW, "distaste of a sex act" doesn't feel like a "judgement" to me.

https://biggeekdad.com/2010/10/side-by-side/

After reading through this part of the discussion I have to agree with you. People feel the way they feel about things. One can examine the reasoning behind those feelings or not. But as long as those feelings do not result in bias against another I don't see why anyone would think there is any harm in having those feelings. Even if the distaste of coconuts originated with a deep born hatred of Pacific Islanders because one of them stole a ball from you when you were a kid, if you currently have no bias against Pacific Islanders I see no great benefit in examining if the lingering dislike of coconuts comes from the original stolen ball episode, or if it is due to the fact that coconut has kind of a gross texture and aftertaste. You are under no ethical or moral obligation to work toward eliminating your distaste of coconuts.

Yeah, me too. I also saw them in concert about five times.

Is there an atmosphere on asteroids? And one dense enough to impart a boomerang effect?

Why would I do that? I never said old conservatives are "more pissy than old liberals". Perhaps you can cite a study that shows "All OLD people are grumpy", which is a claim that you did make.

Sure it does. You just can't see it.

Is there an atmosphere on asteroids? And one dense enough to impart a boomerang effect?

I wonder if the number of people who are unwilling to see humor in many situations is any different than it was in the past. I don't know if there are any studies on the subject but if I had to guess I'd say people are generally happier than in the past. Life has certainly improved over the past 50 years for blacks, women, gays, poor people, sick people, and many others. It is easier to find humor in your life when you can find work you are qualified for regardless of your gender, and laws don't discriminate against you because of who you love. People who don't like change on the other hand have had to deal a lot, so certainly that group might be offended on a day to day basis. A lot of old conservatives for example seem to be in a pissy mood every day. That's just anecdotal though.

Hmm. When you put it that way I guess I do see why you posted the following questions... Clearly you were talking about yourself. By definition, since I am in opposition to your position on this issue, my responses are going to be "confrontational". I'm sorry you're offended by my posting style.

And here I thought I directly responded to the questions you posed.

I think you are mistaken on this point. I believe people have always been offended when called a C or N or "boy" or "ape" or "squaw" or "redskin" or "kike" or "jew boy"or "chink", but due to their relative weakness just had to live with it. What has changed is that minorities have more power than they used to have and instead of quietly fuming at the insult (what you interpret as "not being offended") they are speaking out. Primarily because people are different. If a term is used to dehumanize people like you so that you can be murdered and fed to the pigs, you can be 'hurt' by that term. Emotionally and physically. In part because it helps interactions run more smoothly. If you had a brother who was taunted by the word "retard" and he was abused during his life because of a low IQ, you would probably find it easier to work with someone who didn't cavalierly toss about the term "retard" when around you.

No, intent is some of it. So is being respectful of your audience. I wouldn't use the C word in front of a group of women even if I was factually reciting a list of derogatory terms for females. Living in a society comes with some responsibilities. People have free speech, but not freedom from consequences. Hiding behind the cloak of 'intent' and 'definitions' will not save me from the wrath of those I've offended, nor should it.

In the post I was referring to he made no mention that "it can be both". The "it can be both" statement came in a later post.

You were correct in thinking this was a science site. You were incorrect in assuming that absolves you from considering the impact your words may have on others. I'm pretty sure even scientists are social creatures with feelings.

I did not give you the downvote, but in response to your question... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/opinion/roseanne-racism-blacks-apes.html WRT referring to blacks as apes, that realization is irrelevant.

Yes, of course. I just felt that since @mistermack adamantly supported his political statement and made no attempt support his post as a joke, that in this case it was only political.

I believe the answer is "yes" by definition. If an object cannot assume a nearly round shape then it is not a planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet

Yes, that definitely impacted my view of your post. When @TheVat pointed out the original joke on page 1 I read it and saw your post in a bit of a different light.

This post confirms for me my interpretation of mistermack's two cows story as a political statement rather than a joke. As such it probably should have been posted in the Politics section. The Israeli/Palestinian issue has enough meat on it to keep us talking for months!