rockerbikie wrote:I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.

Ketara wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I'm not incapable of how the world works. War is War doesn't matter how big it is. Peace is futile, peace is utter stupid in some circumstances(Iraq War). I am a Nationalist Communist, I believe that everyone should get equal wages and everyone should keep to their own kind. I dispise the idea of cross breeding because it will cause little genetic variation and it will lead to the extinction of man kind. People need to look at why people are different from an Evolution point of view, then you will realise why Multi-culturism is flawed. Do you know why there is a population crisis in European countries? Due to capitalism, people don't have enough time to look after kids, also we have condoms.

You know, you almost took me in for a minute there. I almost believed you were serious.

Because you are joking/trolling for a laugh, right? Right?!

AustonT wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:The UK right wing nationalist party tends to be ridiculed and ignored, though do we really count as europe?

DoD you give up the pound for euros? No. Then you're European just not idiots.
I don't know why this is focused on "right wing" nationalists. I was under the impression that nationalism was free from partisan politics.
Then I saw the story was from the guardian and headed by a picture of that Norwegian mass murderer. Let's call this overenthusiastic journalism. Although I have no doubt that right wingers, islamophobes, and nationalists are on the rise. I would guess that left wing and centrist nationalism is or will be on the rise too as stable countries like say, Germany, see the potential for other EU nations like Italy's economy drag them under too. Who knows how far This upswell of nationalism will spread, the EU isn't all bad, but it could still be the victim.

corpsesarefun wrote:Breeding with people of dissimilar genetics causes little variation when compared to breeding with those closely related to you?

Well that's a new one...

Kilkrazy wrote:

AustonT wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:The UK right wing nationalist party tends to be ridiculed and ignored, though do we really count as europe?

DoD you give up the pound for euros? No. Then you're European just not idiots.
I don't know why this is focused on "right wing" nationalists. I was under the impression that nationalism was free from partisan politics.
Then I saw the story was from the guardian and headed by a picture of that Norwegian mass murderer. Let's call this overenthusiastic journalism. Although I have no doubt that right wingers, islamophobes, and nationalists are on the rise. I would guess that left wing and centrist nationalism is or will be on the rise too as stable countries like say, Germany, see the potential for other EU nations like Italy's economy drag them under too. Who knows how far This upswell of nationalism will spread, the EU isn't all bad, but it could still be the victim.

From the historic viewpoint nationalism is inherently right wing and conservative.

Traditionally socialism and communism embrace other nations and see the differences between them as much less important than the class struggle against the the oppressive capitalist overlords.

rockerbikie wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Breeding with people of dissimilar genetics causes little variation when compared to breeding with those closely related to you?

Well that's a new one...

Think about it, what are the strong points in each race. They will also be eliminated.

corpsesarefun wrote:That is not how anything works at all.

rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.

Rented Tritium wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Breeding with people of dissimilar genetics causes little variation when compared to breeding with those closely related to you?

Well that's a new one...

Think about it, what are the strong points in each race. They will also be eliminated.

I am curious. What are the strong points of each race?

rockerbikie wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:That is not how anything works at all.

Rephrase that, that is poorly worded.

Ketara wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.

Sir, in that case, I am genuinely......flabbergasted. With a dash of being gobsmacked.

As a scholar in the field of war, with a good dose of general education, common sense, and world knowledge, I find it difficult to understand why viewpoints such as your still exist. I won't bother trying to convince you why you're wrong through academic discourse, as people with such views are usually rarely amenable to logic.

rockerbikie wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Breeding with people of dissimilar genetics causes little variation when compared to breeding with those closely related to you?

Well that's a new one...

Think about it, what are the strong points in each race. They will also be eliminated.

I am curious. What are the strong points of each race?

Figure it out for yourself, I am not a Shepard to lead you Sheep around. I'm sick of sheep.

rockerbikie wrote:I am amenable to logic. I am a reasonist. I have a good ammount in all 4 topics you have stated. In fact, alot more than the general population.

corpsesarefun wrote:That is not how anything works at all.

I can understand that different ethnic grounds have a tendency to be better suited for different environments, northern Europeans tend to be stouter and more tolerant to dairy products than say Africans or folks from the Mediterranean but an Italian woman having a kid with a Swedish bloke doesn't somehow cancel this out to make some kind of rubbish half and half child. That just isn't how anything works.

Ketara wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.

Sir, in that case, I am genuinely......flabbergasted. With a dash of being gobsmacked.

As a scholar in the field of war, with a good dose of general education, common sense, and world knowledge, I find it difficult to understand why viewpoints such as your still exist. I won't bother trying to convince you why you're wrong through academic discourse, as people with such views are usually rarely amenable to logic.

corpsesarefun wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:That is not how anything works at all.

Rephrase that, that is poorly worded.

Nothing in existence functions as you describe.

Happy now?

rockerbikie wrote:Tall is inherently stronger than short

ShumaGorath wrote:

Then find that happy medium, stop whining about part of the solution.

Ketara wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I am amenable to logic. I am a reasonist. I have a good ammount in all 4 topics you have stated. In fact, alot more than the general population.

In that case, to begin. Your concept of what you term to be 'races'. You are aware that 'race' has been demonstrably repeatedly proven, in innumerable biological, sociological, and anthropological studies, to be nothing more than a social construct? I can cite academic chapter and verse if necessary here.

rockerbikie wrote:
I meant more skin-tone lines. Think about it fair skinned is more suited to Scandivania etc while Africans are suited to Africa. Imagine if you had a mixed skinned colour and a huge ice age happened, we'd probably die out. Tall is inherently stronger than short meaning that we'd probably die out in an ice-age. If the world heated up however we'd still be in trouble because Fat is inherently stronger than slim, meaning that we'd probably not do too well in a hot environment either.

Ketara wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:I am amenable to logic. I am a reasonist. I have a good ammount in all 4 topics you have stated. In fact, alot more than the general population.

In that case, to begin. Your concept of what you term to be 'races'. You are aware that 'race' has been demonstrably repeatedly proven, in innumerable biological, sociological, and anthropological studies, to be nothing more than a social construct? I can cite academic chapter and verse if necessary here.

Rented Tritium wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Tall is inherently stronger than short

Uhhh

Tell that to 80% of the marines.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Space Crusader wrote:Isnt nationalism the same as patriotism? Loving your own country but hating thoe filthy evil foreigners?

Patriotism is liking and being proud of your country.

Nationalism is believing that yours is the best.

Rented Tritium wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Tall is inherently stronger than short

Uhhh

Tell that to 80% of the marines.

Space Crusader wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Space Crusader wrote:Isnt nationalism the same as patriotism? Loving your own country but hating thoe filthy evil foreigners?

Patriotism is liking and being proud of your country.

Nationalism is believing that yours is the best.

Seems many americans are nationalists.

Frazzled wrote:

Ketara wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:No... You do not realise that my avatar is a profile picture of Varg Vikerness, a far-right political activist.

Sir, in that case, I am genuinely......flabbergasted. With a dash of being gobsmacked.

As a scholar in the field of war, with a good dose of general education, common sense, and world knowledge, I find it difficult to understand why viewpoints such as your still exist. I won't bother trying to convince you why you're wrong through academic discourse, as people with such views are usually rarely amenable to logic.

Its very simple actually. Some people, when children, grow up without the awesomoness of Tex Mex or wienerdogs (hound dogs have been found to be an effective substitute). These people, naturally have a massive void in their lives, and unfillable chasm. Like a black hole it draws in other emotions and drives, in a vast vain effort to fill that need.
This theory was first found of the Kaiser himself. Early footage shows the Kaiser with his wiener dog Smitzi. He has happy and vibrant and there are no wars. Sadly Smitzi was ambushed by the hated cats one day. The Kaiser was inconsolable. Shortly thereafter a nasty rumor went around that the Czar was a cat lover and in fact, tormented wiener dogs by forcing them to eat vegetables. The Kaiser was naturally enraged at this.

That day was July 27. The rest is history.

rockerbikie wrote:Races of the world:
Western European
Northern European
Slavic
Arabic
Eastern European
South East Asia
North East Asia
Western Asia
North African

People in each category have similar characteristic to each other.
South African
Paciffic
South America
Native American

Race and ethnicity are terms oft used interchangeably in common everyday speech and interaction. Both share similar meaning, in that they are used to class and categorise different people, however despite the aforementioned common perception, both terms still retain their own individual histories and definitions. In order to analyse the concepts of race and ethnicity as social constructs however, the meanings of the terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ must be fully explored, in order to comprehend precisely how they fall under the category of ‘social construct’, rather than a more objective definition. Firstly though, the term ‘social construct’ must be defined.

A social construct is commonly held to be a perception of a an individual, a group, or an idea that is ‘constructed’ through cultural or social practice; that is to say, a social phenomenon that has been created and developed by society itself. In and of itself, a social construct is an intangible, incorporeal thing, it relies solely on the existence of humanity, and is based in their interaction and experiences of and with each other.

The word ‘race’ seems initially not to fit this category, at least by common perception. This is because the word emerged primarily from the extended encounters between Europeans and non-Europeans in the early sixteenth century, and scientific racism in the nineteenth century. Discovering differences between themselves and humans physically, Europeans came to believe that there were fundamental differences between them and other humans, and that humans, like many animals, could separated into biologically distinctive breeds or ‘races’. However, more recent scientific evidence shows such a concept to be flawed. Geneticists have thoroughly demonstrated that whilst there may be some variation between people with different geographic origins, there is far more genetic difference between individual peoples within such groupings. Not only this, the mixing of various peoples across the face of the earth has resulted in such a genetic soup, that it is often nigh on impossible to subdivide certain people into specific races; indeed, those who did attempt to set out the different races of people, from Burke to Pickering to Linnaeus, all came up with different numbers of races. The result of this is that the concept of races as meaningful biological categories for groups of human beings has been all but dismissed by modern academics.

Despite this however, the perception of ‘race’ still wields tremendous power as a social category or construct in and of itself, allowing it to remain separate from ‘ethnicity’ in places. Karen Blu notes that ‘race’ is still a term used when considering the biological origins of an individual by the common layman and as such, ‘race’ should remain a separate category for analysis from ‘ethnicity’, because they are separate categories in common terminology. This consideration of biological origins usually rests upon physical appearance of the person in question, that is to say skin, eye, and hair colour, physical size, and so on. Yet to rely on such phenotypical characteristics in order to determine race is not always sufficiently adequate, as what can be considered to be ‘white’ or ‘black’ in one part of the world is often not what would be considered to fit that category in another. Attempting to class people in such a purely objective biological sense fails to take into account societal context, which is ultimately subjective and variable across the globe. As such, due to the variation in what is considered adequate to slot someone into an appropriate racial category differs depending on your geographical location, the term and concepts of ‘race’ must ultimately be considered to be social constructions, as they hold no objective scientific meaning outside of human interaction.

rockerbikie wrote:
I meant more skin-tone lines. Think about it fair skinned is more suited to Scandivania etc while Africans are suited to Africa. Imagine if you had a mixed skinned colour and a huge ice age happened, we'd probably die out. Tall is inherently stronger than short meaning that we'd probably die out in an ice-age. If the world heated up however we'd still be in trouble because Fat is inherently stronger than slim, meaning that we'd probably not do too well in a hot environment either.

Ketara wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:Races of the world:
Western European
Northern European
Slavic
Arabic
Eastern European
South East Asia
North East Asia
Western Asia
North African

People in each category have similar characteristic to each other.
South African
Paciffic
South America
Native American

No. You're basing your concept of race purely on skin phenotypes. And even were skin phenotypes alone considered to be sufficient justification for race, Brazil, where people's 'race' and perception of whether they're Black, White, or Indian varies according to social standing, personal wealth, and education would be sufficient to prove such an idea wrong. I'm going to copypaste something I wrote here to elucidate further:-

Race and ethnicity are terms oft used interchangeably in common everyday speech and interaction. Both share similar meaning, in that they are used to class and categorise different people, however despite the aforementioned common perception, both terms still retain their own individual histories and definitions. In order to analyse the concepts of race and ethnicity as social constructs however, the meanings of the terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ must be fully explored, in order to comprehend precisely how they fall under the category of ‘social construct’, rather than a more objective definition. Firstly though, the term ‘social construct’ must be defined.

A social construct is commonly held to be a perception of a an individual, a group, or an idea that is ‘constructed’ through cultural or social practice; that is to say, a social phenomenon that has been created and developed by society itself. In and of itself, a social construct is an intangible, incorporeal thing, it relies solely on the existence of humanity, and is based in their interaction and experiences of and with each other.

The word ‘race’ seems initially not to fit this category, at least by common perception. This is because the word emerged primarily from the extended encounters between Europeans and non-Europeans in the early sixteenth century, and scientific racism in the nineteenth century. Discovering differences between themselves and humans physically, Europeans came to believe that there were fundamental differences between them and other humans, and that humans, like many animals, could separated into biologically distinctive breeds or ‘races’. However, more recent scientific evidence shows such a concept to be flawed. Geneticists have thoroughly demonstrated that whilst there may be some variation between people with different geographic origins, there is far more genetic difference between individual peoples within such groupings. Not only this, the mixing of various peoples across the face of the earth has resulted in such a genetic soup, that it is often nigh on impossible to subdivide certain people into specific races; indeed, those who did attempt to set out the different races of people, from Burke to Pickering to Linnaeus, all came up with different numbers of races. The result of this is that the concept of races as meaningful biological categories for groups of human beings has been all but dismissed by modern academics.

Despite this however, the perception of ‘race’ still wields tremendous power as a social category or construct in and of itself, allowing it to remain separate from ‘ethnicity’ in places. Karen Blu notes that ‘race’ is still a term used when considering the biological origins of an individual by the common layman and as such, ‘race’ should remain a separate category for analysis from ‘ethnicity’, because they are separate categories in common terminology. This consideration of biological origins usually rests upon physical appearance of the person in question, that is to say skin, eye, and hair colour, physical size, and so on. Yet to rely on such phenotypical characteristics in order to determine race is not always sufficiently adequate, as what can be considered to be ‘white’ or ‘black’ in one part of the world is often not what would be considered to fit that category in another. Attempting to class people in such a purely objective biological sense fails to take into account societal context, which is ultimately subjective and variable across the globe. As such, due to the variation in what is considered adequate to slot someone into an appropriate racial category differs depending on your geographical location, the term and concepts of ‘race’ must ultimately be considered to be social constructions, as they hold no objective scientific meaning outside of human interaction.

rockerbikie wrote:
The Norse beat the living daylights out of the English.