Israel/Gaza

SamZED

Originally posted by Lestov16
I was discussing this situation with my dad (a Muslim) yesterday. He pretty much said exactly what you said, and it is a justified POV IMO. It really is. Pretty much anyone who looked into the conflict will say the exact same thing. It all comes down to the following:
They're already illegally occupying Palestinian territories yet continue to build more and more settlements destroying houses and pushing Palestinians even further forcing them to live in inhuman conditions while US vetoes every UN resolution condemning those actions. And any time Palestinians try to do something about it they're bombed by the thousands. And US officials call it self-defense. Because when it's a fellow state who cares about logic. Then a lot of people defend it as well simply because no one likes being called on their hypocracy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No! That is not what the video said. If the Palestinians really wanted peace, there would be peace tomorrow.

Sure settlements can be moved, and borders and be agreed upon, but there must be peace first. Peace requires that the Palestine people recognize the state of Israel. Peace on what conditions? That is the main problem. Palestine recognised Israel a long time ago, but there will never be peace among average people as long as Palestinians continue being treated like dogs. And it's not something Palestinians can help and not something that will magically stop once Palestinians silently accept their fate. Israel is not building new settlements because Palestinians are hostile, they're building them because they could give a crap. Pard me for the following analogy but that's equivalent of demanding peace from someone you're continually raping in the a$$.

queeq

Sounds like a thread that will be closed soon.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by queeq
Problem is both parties don't want to compromise on anything and they disagree on almost everything...

You can't sell ice to an Eskimo because he has had enough of it. I think same goes for Israel/Pakistan. I think its time one side wins already, let them slug it out.

jaden101

The best solution is to just turn the entire middle east shit hole into a glass sheet. Every ****ing one of those countries is a complete and utter shambles.

NemeBro

Originally posted by Star428
Damn right Israel has a right to defend herself. Palestines started it so they brought it on themselves. It's actually your post that is BS. Yeah, Palestine started it by not meekly leaving their homes when they were kicked out by invading foreigners! **** brown people!

Lord Lucien

And you know what? All of Palestine is to blame. Every single Palestinian is to blame. All those dead Palestinian children? Deserved it.

Shakyamunison

^ What the hell?! rolling on floor laughing

queeq

Do any of you know what's going on both sides?

Israel builds a huge wall blocking the Palestians from having a normal life. Plus they're BUILDING settlements on the lands that are part of the State of Palestine. Plus they use their heavily armed forces to retaliate. They do not wish to stop building settlements, they don't trust Palestinian border control or police to manage security in the Palestian Authority so they feel free to exercise that in their way, which is pretty rough.

On the other side we have Hamas and the Palestinian demands. Hamas wants to drive Israel into the sea, destroy them utterly. They demand the lands of their people back they owned prior to 1948 (when the UN - the WORLD decided for a Jewish Homes State in this area - this was not conquest!) which are now within Israeli borders. They also demand a return of ALL Palestinian refugees from Jordan and Lebanon (some five million by now with all their offspring since 1948) and demand they can settle on 'their' former lands within the borders of Israel. (and since Israel is a democracy, the Jews would be outnumbered by Arabs/Palestinians and that would result by election in the end of a JEWISH state).

Now, this is kind of the stalemate, flavoured with some 60 years of violence back and forth and feeling of hate, revenge and threat over some three generations.

There can only be peace when both parties start compromising on their demands. The question is: who's willing to make the first step.
Personally I'd like to see Israel stop building settlements on Palestinian lands and even consider moving the Israeli's living there at this moment, since Israel is the stronger party here. Then the Palestinians should acknowledge the State of Israel and drop their claims on lands within Israel's borders and the return of the Palestinian refugees TO lands with Israeli borders. That would at least be a clear acknowledgement from both sides to the right of existence of both lands.

But I tell you, I don't think any of this will happen. Not anytime soon.

Star428

Originally posted by NemeBro
Yeah, Palestine started it by not meekly leaving their homes when they were kicked out by invading foreigners! **** brown people!

LOL. Wake up. They started it by firing rockets into Israel and trying to kill any Jew that they could. Now, they're playing the victim because they can't defeat a superior foe.

Star428

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Wake up. They started it by firing rockets into Israel and trying to kill any Jew that they could. Now, they're playing the victim because they can't defeat a superior foe.

Oh yeah, they also started it by terrorizing Israeli citizens at every opportunity. They (Palestines) deserve no sympathy considering how they were dancing in the streets when thousands of Americans were killed when the World Trade towers fell. I wish Israel would wipe them all out.

NemeBro

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Wake up. They started it by firing rockets into Israel and trying to kill any Jew that they could. Now, they're playing the victim because they can't defeat a superior foe. Why do you think the Palestinians are angry?

Do you think they're genetically predisposed to violence by their brownness or something?

dadudemon

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why do you think the Palestinians are angry?

Do you think they're genetically predisposed to violence by their brownness or something?

The older I get, the more I think Arabs have a genetic predisposition towards "losing their shit." More so than other peoples.

They may not be the angriest but they are one of the angriest people on the planet.

Basically, I'm saying I don't think it is completely learned.

But saying stuff like this is considered taboo. Trying to study stuff like this is generally considered taboo, as well.

And yet, our closet animal relatives, Chimpanzees, show us that their behaviors can vary wildly (Bonobos and Chimps are closely related and can produce fertile offspring but Bonobos are much more peaceful (thought not perfectly) than the common Chimps).

So why would not similar things occur among humans? Why are we immune from behavioral variations similar to Chimps?

My personal opinion is it comes from both sides in the scientific community (on why these taboo topics are not really studied): the liberals find it offensive and racist to study such subjects and the conservatives find it offends their sense of responsibility.

Before I'm accused of being a wacko, look at the backlash against the studying done about rapists and how rapists were clearly different than normal people (which partially supported a hypothesis that rapists may not be as in control of their behavior as others).

SamZED

@Queed good summary.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ What the hell?! rolling on floor laughing

Does that mean my post was not written properly in English or that you just disagree with what I said? Because I stand by it and will be happy to elaborate.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Wake up. They started it by firing rockets into Israel and trying to kill any Jew that they could. Now, they're playing the victim because they can't defeat a superior foe. After Israel invaded Palestinian territory (as recognized by the UN mind you) randomly butchering people and destroying their homes just to scare them off. If you break into my house in the middle of the night and shoot me don't blame me for hitting you with a baseball bat. Palestinians ARE the victim of illegal Israeli occupation. Educate yourself on the subject then come back.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by SamZED
@Queed good summary.

Does that mean my post was not written properly in English or that you just disagree with what I said? Because I stand by it and will be happy to elaborate.

...

Sorry, but I thought maybe you were drunk.

SamZED

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but I thought maybe you were drunk. I was. I am. The only reason left out all the swear words. Everything I said is still true.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by SamZED
I was. I am. The only reason left out all the swear words. Everything I said is still true.

I don't want to talk to you right now because you are not listening. You are putting words in my mouth, and I have already said what I wanted to say. Sober up, and maybe on an other topic we can talk.

queeq

I think this debate is far beyond "who started it". It should be all about "how do these two warring parties get out of this mess so normal people ca live normal lives."

SamZED

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't want to talk to you right now because you are not listening. You are putting words in my mouth, and I have already said what I wanted to say. Sober up, and maybe on an other topic we can talk. I heard your opinion. And say it's messed up and comes from denial. Won't change later. See you in another thread.

Robtard

Would the proper response for a native American descendent be to start firing explosive tipped arrows into American households because that land the house was built on at one point in time belonged to one of his ancestors? The obvious answer is no.

The Palestinians need to collectively suppress their hatred toward Israel/Jews, come together as one and shit-stomp Hamas out of existence. Hamas is the greater enemy to Palestinians, hiding weapon caches in schools and hospitals, rockets missing the intended Israeli targets and hitting Palestinian homes etc. IF they did that, they would show the world that they want a peaceful coexistence with Israel and Israel's hand would be forced by international pressure to not be dicks.

But that's not going to happen, Hamas will continue to fire rockets and use Palestinian children as meat shields so when Israel targets weapon bunkers, the children casualties can then be used as propaganda by Hamas. /endrant

Mindship

Originally posted by queeq
I think this debate is far beyond "who started it". It should be all about "how do these two warring parties get out of this mess so normal people ca live normal lives." I agree. The politics, history, religion, etc: everything debatable should not be addressed now because it can not be quickly settled (if ever). But the fighting can be halted immediately if:

1. Hamas stops attacking Israel.
2. Israel will then stop shelling Gaza. At this point, tunnel destruction will likely continue, but this is a precise, close-quarters operation that should pose no harm to civilians...unless, of course, Hamas starts chaining civilians to the walls to protect its tunnels.
3. Once both sides stop lobbing projectiles, Palestinians get to live.

Originally posted by Robtard
Would the proper response for a native American descendent be to start firing explosive tipped arrows into American households because that land the house was built on at one point in time belonged to one of his ancestors? The obvious answer is no.

The Palestinians need to collectively suppress their hatred toward Israel/Jews, come together as one and shit-stomp Hamas out of existence. Hamas is the greater enemy to Palestinians, hiding weapon caches in schools and hospitals, rockets missing the intended Israeli targets and hitting Palestinian homes etc. IF they did that, they would show the world that they want a peaceful coexistence with Israel and Israel's hand would be forced by international pressure to not be dicks.

But that's not going to happen, Hamas will continue to fire rockets and use Palestinian children as meat shields so when Israel targets weapon bunkers, the children casualties can then be used as propaganda by Hamas. /endrant But a rant more/less spot on.

SamZED

Originally posted by Robtard
Would the proper response for a native American descendent be to start firing explosive tipped arrows into American households because that land the house was built on at one point in time belonged to one of his ancestors? The obvious answer is no.

The Palestinians need to collectively suppress their hatred toward Israel/Jews, come together as one and shit-stomp Hamas out of existence. Hamas is the greater enemy to Palestinians, hiding weapon caches in schools and hospitals, rockets missing the intended Israeli targets and hitting Palestinian homes etc. IF they did that, they would show the world that they want a peaceful coexistence with Israel and Israel's hand would be forced by international pressure to not be dicks.

But that's not going to happen, Hamas will continue to fire rockets and use Palestinian children as meat shields so when Israel targets weapon bunkers, the children casualties can then be used as propaganda by Hamas. /endrant

That's an interesting analogy with the difference that native Americans aren't being forced out of their land into isolation or killed for protesting against it by those household owners. Used to be the case a long time ago and correct me if I'm wrong they weren't exactly happy about it. Only difference they didn't have missiles back in 18th century.
Israel does not bomb schools and hospitals because of Hamas, they bomb them because they could give a crap. And while I appreciate that you try to come up with a peaceful resolution for both sides much like Shaky you present it in a way to make sure Israel isn't held responsible for anything while blaming everything on Palestine. Palestinian civilians die? Their own fault. Should've dealt with Hamas. Being forced into isolation and to live in inhumane conditions? Their own fault. Should've surpassed their hatred towards Israel. Meanwhile Israel shouldn't do jack, just continue occupying more territory and bombing the sh!t out of anyone who has a problem with it. Like Queeq said, both sides should compromise.

NemeBro

Originally posted by dadudemon
The older I get, the more I think Arabs have a genetic predisposition towards "losing their shit." More so than other peoples.

They may not be the angriest but they are one of the angriest people on the planet.

Basically, I'm saying I don't think it is completely learned.

But saying stuff like this is considered taboo. Trying to study stuff like this is generally considered taboo, as well.

And yet, our closet animal relatives, Chimpanzees, show us that their behaviors can vary wildly (Bonobos and Chimps are closely related and can produce fertile offspring but Bonobos are much more peaceful (thought not perfectly) than the common Chimps).

So why would not similar things occur among humans? Why are we immune from behavioral variations similar to Chimps?

My personal opinion is it comes from both sides in the scientific community (on why these taboo topics are not really studied): the liberals find it offensive and racist to study such subjects and the conservatives find it offends their sense of responsibility.

Before I'm accused of being a wacko, look at the backlash against the studying done about rapists and how rapists were clearly different than normal people (which partially supported a hypothesis that rapists may not be as in control of their behavior as others).

If there was a reputable study on brown people's natural inclination towards violence then I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand because of racism.

Robtard

Originally posted by SamZED
1) I didn't say they go out of their way, I said they don't give a crap. Which they don't.
2) Ok. Except Palestinians mainly suffer because of Israel, not Hamas. But why even address that, right? Just blame it all on Hamas and be done with it. That's why I said you're presenting it in a way to make sure Israel isn't being held responsible for anything.
3) So basically that excuse Israel uses every time they bomb civilians to teach Palestinians a lesson "Oh we only did it because there was a Hamas member hiding under a bush". Meanwhile you make it sound like Hamas is the cause of all bad things happening to Palestinians because it's easier to blame them than accept that Israel is doing messed up sh!t, the kind of sh!t the US would've happily labeled as inhuman act of violence, oppression and genoside in any other circumstance except for this one. Or accept that Israel will continue to do all that regardless of Hamas existence. So the conflict is Palestinians fault because they won't surpass their hatred towards Israel. Because they have so many reasons to.
4) How very noble of Israel. Even they can't get away with nuking the whole area. So Palestinians should deal with Hamas and sit there peacefully while Israel is building new settlements, murdering and treating them like third rate humans. Why didn't they think of this brilliant option. That'll fix everything. It's all up to them.

You don't want to have a discussion, you just want to bash Israel it seems.

It is "very noble" of Israel considering their enemy wants them eradicated, if we compare the two.

While I don't know exactly what Israel would do if Palestine smashed Hamas as I'm not a seer (will be soon though), it would be a step towards a possible peace and compromise between Israel and Palestine and it would definitely put Israel in the spotlight for being the one that has to push for an equal peace solution.

Tell me, what's your solution? Since you think mine of Palestine breaking itself free of Hamas as a first step is terrible.

dadudemon

Originally posted by NemeBro
If there was a reputable study on brown people's natural inclination towards violence then I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand because of racism.

Not brown people, Middle Eastern People.

And there was a study done on Sub Saharan Africans (or those of their descent) that showed they were more likely to commit crimes and violent crimes.

They controlled for things such as "racist white people in law enforcement and the criminal justice system."*

It was a humongous.

It was paraded about as racist and pretty much no one would try to do a study like that again. no expression

*I think they blamed it on testosterone. It was talked about, at length, in the GDF, 5+ years ago.

dadudemon

http://i.imgur.com/D5Yo1.gif

NemeBro

Look at the little ****er next to him trying to cover up. haermm

Robtard

Four Lions is funny.

Lek Kuen

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not brown people, Middle Eastern People.

And there was a study done on Sub Saharan Africans (or those of their descent) that showed they were more likely to commit crimes and violent crimes.

They controlled for things such as "racist white people in law enforcement and the criminal justice system."*

It was a humongous.

It was paraded about as racist and pretty much no one would try to do a study like that again. no expression

*I think they blamed it on testosterone. It was talked about, at length, in the GDF, 5+ years ago.

Are you sure that isn't culture?

I'm pretty sure a lot of the problems in my area are pretty much the end result of the society and upbringing, more so then an innate need to hurt people for no reason. When I was growing up I was explicitly taught to solve my problems with violence and not to bother calling the police. The issues in place of the community are complicated and the effects of racist cops and such has hold even when they stop being racist.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Are you sure that isn't culture?

I wasn't one of the researchers and I'm definitely the wrong person to ask that question.

I think Culture has something, if not everything, to do with it. But, in the study, the linked test levels with crime/violence. Asians were the most well-behaved and white people were close to them at second and then significantly below Asians and whites were the blacks. I hope me mentioning this offends somebody because I want them to look it up and post it because I'm too lazy to do it.

inimalist, that jerk, would know because I think he was the one that originally brought it up.

Lek Kuen

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wasn't one of the researchers and I'm definitely the wrong person to ask that question.

I think Culture has something, if not everything, to do with it. But, in the study, the linked test levels with crime/violence. Asians were the most well-behaved and white people were close to them at second and then significantly below Asians and whites were the blacks. I hope me mentioning this offends somebody because I want them to look it up and post it because I'm too lazy to do it.

inimalist, that jerk, would know because I think he was the one that originally brought it up.

I know it's not the right thread, but just saying I don't think it's genetic. i'm no scientist but just you know living my whole life in the black community I saw the average kids growing up to be the gangbangers and thugs, as well as just everyone around me. That and the experiences of my parents and grandparents tell me its alot more complicated then an innate black thing.

I'm sure an actual thread would devolve into pure racism pretty fast but I'd be willing to share my thoughts and experiences if you made one

NemeBro

It is true that black culture is morally bankrupt and inherently destructive. thumb up

Lek Kuen

It's how we get white women

queeq

OMG... how threads can derail.

Lestov16

LOL This is ridiculous. The UN called for a ceasefire that was to begin 1:00 am EST this morning. Already it has collapsed

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-conflict.html?_r=0

Omega Vision

In an ideal world, Israel and Hamas would forge a real ceasefire brokered by the UN, Palestinian Authority, Arab League, and USA and the terms of this ceasefire would be the unconditional disarmament of Hamas and the unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from Palestinian land (what constitutes Palestinian land might take a lot of debating, but the simplest way would be to revert the borders back to pre-1948 dimensions) and the return of both Palestine and Israel to John Kerry's peace treaty negotiations with the final aim of making Palestine a genuine country recognized by the entirety of the UN.

At this point I have no idea how Israel thinks it will be safer and more secure with Palestine not as a real centralized country with international recognition.

Time Immemorial

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/31/UN-Condemns-Israel-s-Latest-War-Crime-Not-Sharing-Iron-Dome-with-Hamas

UN be cracking jokes...

queeq

Pre-1948 border???? That'd mean: no Israel, no Jewish State... that would be weird. Pre-1948 there wasn't even such a thing as "Palestinians'...

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
It's how we get white women

I lol'd.

Fallschirmj�ger

A Palestinian revolt on Hamas sounds like a good idea and a practical one in a perfect world. Easier said than done though.

If the Palestinians were to turn on Hamas, that would anger all the extremists and on a larger scale, this might anger the overall Arab-Muslim population and endanger the Palestinians even more.

In their position at the moment, they can't afford that, and neither can we, being Iran and other extremist countries are just itching for their perfect excuse to storm the Israeli bastions as WW3 becomes an open door where anyone would and most likely would participate.

Stealth Moose

The answer is obvious:

Engineer a virus that kills people who lack empathy.

/wars

Gadabout

http://www.qatarchronicle.com/happenings/52881/video-of-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-admitting-to-killing-innocents-go-viral-online/

Gadabout

http://www.qatarchronicle.com/happenings/52881/video-of-israeli-prime-minister-netanyahu-admitting-to-killing-innocents-go-viral-online/

dadudemon

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The answer is obvious:

Engineer a virus that kills people who lack empathy.

/wars

Poor psychopaths. sad

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by dadudemon
Poor psychopaths. sad

I have no empathy for them.

...wait.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I have no empathy for them.

...wait.

"RIP in peace."

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by dadudemon
"RIP in peace."

If you don't shed a tear, you come too.

NemeBro

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The answer is obvious:

Engineer a virus that kills people who lack empathy.

/wars But that would arguably include me.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by NemeBro
But that would arguably include me.

I know. I can't get funding fast enough.

It's xyz!

Now THIS is really something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The older I get, the more I think Arabs have a genetic predisposition towards "losing their shit." More so than other peoples. If you're really being sincere, I greatly think you should kill yourself before you get any worse.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They may not be the angriest but they are one of the angriest people on the planet. They're also the most hated people on Earth. hmm What did Yoda say?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, I'm saying I don't think it is completely learned.

But saying stuff like this is considered taboo. Trying to study stuff like this is generally considered taboo, as well. Can't see why, damning an entire culture shouldn't be taboo, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
And yet, our closet animal relatives, Chimpanzees, show us that their behaviors can vary wildly (Bonobos and Chimps are closely related and can produce fertile offspring but Bonobos are much more peaceful (thought not perfectly) than the common Chimps).

So why would not similar things occur among humans? Why are we immune from behavioral variations similar to Chimps?
They're two completely different species, not what you suggest. no expression

Originally posted by dadudemon
My personal opinion is it comes from both sides in the scientific community (on why these taboo topics are not really studied): the liberals find it offensive and racist to study such subjects and the conservatives find it offends their sense of responsibility. More nonsensical generalisation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Before I'm accused of being a wacko, look at the backlash against the studying done about rapists and how rapists were clearly different than normal people (which partially supported a hypothesis that rapists may not be as in control of their behavior as others). It'd be nice to see this study to have an idea of when it was made, at least. (By the way, I said when, not where, and I don't mean where because I said when.) Seems like an odd comparison considering one study seeks to damn a culture and the other study questions abhorent behaviour.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Robtard
The rest of the Arab/Muslim world really doesn't give a single wet smelly shit about Palestine/Palestinians, they're little more than a reason to rant against Israel and the US/The West when it's convenient. If they did, they'd take in the diaspora and feed/shelter their Islamic brothers and sisters. It's similar with the US's view of Afghanistan's plight in the 80's, "we" cared about them because they were fighting against the U.S.S.R.

^ This is really what I was thinking, too. Palestine's allies in the Middle East are lukewarm at best.

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon
The older I get, the more I think Arabs have a genetic predisposition towards "losing their shit." More so than other peoples.

They may not be the angriest but they are one of the angriest people on the planet.

Basically, I'm saying I don't think it is completely learned.

But saying stuff like this is considered taboo. Trying to study stuff like this is generally considered taboo, as well.

And yet, our closet animal relatives, Chimpanzees, show us that their behaviors can vary wildly (Bonobos and Chimps are closely related and can produce fertile offspring but Bonobos are much more peaceful (thought not perfectly) than the common Chimps).

So why would not similar things occur among humans? Why are we immune from behavioral variations similar to Chimps?

My personal opinion is it comes from both sides in the scientific community (on why these taboo topics are not really studied): the liberals find it offensive and racist to study such subjects and the conservatives find it offends their sense of responsibility.

Before I'm accused of being a wacko, look at the backlash against the studying done about rapists and how rapists were clearly different than normal people (which partially supported a hypothesis that rapists may not be as in control of their behavior as others).
I presume that the angry Arab trope can be attributed for the most part to a different culture, poor socioeconomic conditions along with the hostile climate that is usually prevalent there instead of hereditary causes.

Bardock42

Epicurus

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
^ This is really what I was thinking, too. Palestine's allies in the Middle East are lukewarm at best.
Considering the number of times they have had their collective butts kicked by Israel in direct warfare, I'd say there could be good reason for this "lukewarm" attitude.

But seriously, why do the military forces from Middle-Eastern countries suck so much? IIRC, there's a story going around that 2 mid-level Pakistan Air Force pilots who had been "loaned" to the Jordanians and the Syrians during the 6Day war, allegedly had a higher kill count of Israeli fighter aircraft in direct combat than all the other Middle Eastern air combatants combined.

dadudemon

Originally posted by It's xyz!
If you're really being sincere, I greatly think you should kill yourself before you get any worse.

Really, telling someone to kill themselves? You're such a tough guy. So brave. But we already knew you were an internet tough guy! big grin

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Can't see why, damning an entire culture shouldn't be taboo, right?

Culture, eh?

I do believe you missed my point entirely. It could just be your ignorance and you have a special definition of culture. Let me know! smile

Originally posted by It's xyz!
They're two completely different species, not what you suggest. no expression

I'm very very glad you brought that up (I was hoping someone would)! Just because the "binomial nomenclature" separates them out as separate species, does not mean my point is diminished even in the slightest. They can produce fertile offspring. Any type of anger you can express over this comparison is meaningless in the face of this fact. smile

Originally posted by It's xyz!
More nonsensical generalisation.

I can't help it that you're not smart enough to understand it. Maybe someone here can dumb it down for you?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
It'd be nice to see this study to have an idea of when it was made, at least. (By the way, I said when, not where, and I don't mean where because I said when.) Seems like an odd comparison considering one study seeks to damn a culture and the other study questions abhorent behaviour.

No thanks. Your google should work juuuuust fine. smile

If I respected you and thought your interests in this topic were sincere, I might humor you. I don't, you're not, so I won't. wink

dadudemon

Originally posted by Epicurus
I presume that the angry Arab trope can be attributed for the most part to a different culture, poor socioeconomic conditions along with the hostile climate that is usually prevalent there instead of hereditary causes.

I came to my unsubstantiated conclusion by seeing people removed from their environment and placed elsewhere but still being quick to anger: much more so than other peoples.*

I further supported this position by seeing children who grew up entirely outside of their Arab homelands still being quick to boiling anger.*

It can't be simply labeled as, "confirmation bias" and dismissed.

I acknowledge that not all Arabs are like this just the same as other groups of people. It just seems to have a higher incidence with them, from my observations. I would like to see a scientific pole or some sort of research project conducted. Perhaps brain scans (to measure differences in anger when viewing images or watching videos).

But what would such a study do except stir up more contention and racism? I don't think anything. Maybe it could help the corporate world to better deal with employees? But that could be seen as racist. Everything is racist. You can't study human behavior without being seen as a bigot of some sort. But we can certainly study animals! No one cares about us generalizing animal behaviors. But not humans...someone could get offended.

*Both of those could still be entirely environment.

dadudemon

http://i.imgur.com/O3l6Ikc.jpg

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon
I came to my unsubstantiated conclusion by seeing people removed from their environment and placed elsewhere but still being quick to anger: much more so than other peoples.*

I further supported this position by seeing children who grew up entirely outside of their Arab homelands still being quick to boiling anger.*

It can't be simply labeled as, "confirmation bias" and dismissed.

I acknowledge that not all Arabs are like this just the same as other groups of people. It just seems to have a higher incidence with them, from my observations. I would like to see a scientific pole or some sort of research project conducted. Perhaps brain scans (to measure differences in anger when viewing images or watching videos).

But what would such a study do except stir up more contention and racism? I don't think anything. Maybe it could help the corporate world to better deal with employees? But that could be seen as racist. Everything is racist. You can't study human behavior without being seen as a bigot of some sort. But we can certainly study animals! No one cares about us generalizing animal behaviors. But not humans...someone could get offended.

*Both of those could still be entirely environment.
I wasn't really accusing you of "confirmation bias", but merely providing an alternative reason which, given all the evidence we have available on our hands, could be the more likely explanation here.

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm very very glad you brought that up (I was hoping someone would)! Just because the "binomial nomenclature" separates them out as separate species, does not mean my point is diminished even in the slightest. They can produce fertile offspring. Any type of anger you can express over this comparison is meaningless in the face of this fact. smile

Actually he is right when pointing out that that chimp/bonobo comparison of your sucks. You might as well use lions and tigers in your analogy, considering these animals can interbreed successfully as well.

The genetic difference between an Arab and a European is likely to be far less than that of a chimp and a bonobo.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Epicurus
Actually he is right when pointing out that that chimp/bonobo comparison of your sucks.

No it doesn't and you'll see why, in a bit. It is actually a really good point and a biologist would be hard-pressed to find a more apt comparison (for my point). I should note that I did not think my point was this good until after finding two of those links...I did not intend for it to come out this good, is what I'm saying. It was supposed to be a casual comparison between two closely related species and their stark differences in generalized behavior...something that could be loosely applied to humans.

Originally posted by Epicurus
You might as well use lions and tigers in your analogy, considering these animals can interbreed successfully as well.

Just being able to interbreed is definitely not my point. Additionally, there are difficulties in producing any hybrids (Tigons and Ligers) much less fertile offspring (which was in my point). Notice I said, "fertile offspring." That's because they are so genetically similar that they can easily produce fertile offspring. This means that they are very genetically similar. But how similar?

Bonobos are related to Chimps at about 99.6%.

http://www.livescience.com/20940-unraveling-bonobo-genome-secrets.html

Humans also have a similar genetic variance at "...99.6−99.8%..."

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1438.html

I don't think anyone would argue that humans are different species from each other. Additionally, Chimps/Bonobos are so similar to humans that a hybrid has been speculated (but probably not actually achieved due to ethics and possibly due to Chimps/Bonobos having one additional chromosome, but "chromosomal polymorphism" indicates it still may be possible).

The separation of the two as two distinct species means nothing in the face of my point. They behave completely differently from each other and they are extremely similar in their genetics....similar to the variation in humans. Additionally, Chimps and Bonobos live in similar geographies to each other (meaning, divergence and evolution of the two species is not that far back). Additionally, haven't we already discovered some genetic reasons for why some people are unusually peaceful (it was the monks, I believe...)? If we can find reasons for why a people appear to be more peaceful than others, should we not be able to find a reason why they are more violent and/or angrier than other peoples?

But people get up in arms if you bring up these points with humans. But it is okay to compare and contrast the behaviors of Chimps and Bonobos.

There's a word for that but I don't know what it is. Not speciesism, is it? I forget but there does appear to be a species exception for humans for these types of discussions.

But I digress: it looks like my point has been at least partially made with the ridiculous pop-science label called "The Warrior Gene."

http://dna-explained.com/2013/06/16/the-warrior-gene/

They got around the taboo of narrowing it down to race and, instead, call it the "Warrior-gene." This is obviously not the only genetic influence on what makes humans violent and aggressive. As you could probably attest better than I, humans easily influenced by religion seem to be easily influenced into violence, too. I do believe they've studied this, too.

Originally posted by Epicurus
The genetic difference between an Arab and a European is likely to be far less than that of a chimp and a bonobo.

This is probably not true based on what I've said and linked, above, but I do not really know. I could not find any information on this.

The genetic differences between a Northern European and Australian Aborigine would probably show us the the greatest contrast mentioned above (the .4% number) due to how far back their two populations diverged (there might be a greater contrast out there but this is the best one I could think of, off the top of my head) but I am not so sure about Arabs and Europeans. It could be just .2%, as mentioned above.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Seems like it is possible to have an adult conversation with each other when it does not involve fictional characters. no expression

TL : DR - Humans have a genetic variance of 99.6-99.8 and Chimps and Bonobos have a genetic variance of 99.6. Bonobos are, generally, much much more peaceful than their Chimp relatives. Humans seem to have similar outcomes within our own species (with some peoples being seemingly more violent and aggressive than others). This should be studied more but, again, it reeks of racism and taboo so most scientists would steer clear of these types of studies. But, I'm wrong: "The Warrior Gene" seems to be a way researchers have side-stepped at least part of the racial issue because it can appear in seemingly unrelated populations (meaning, people that seem to be as genetically removed as possible from each other but yet, both have this mutation).

dadudemon

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think anyone would argue that humans are different species from each other.

I should note that some people really do make such arguments (see KKK for an example). Obviously, I was not talking about racist ****tards. I was referring to the scientific community.

Lek Kuen

How do you remove cultures from such things though? Even when someone is raised elsewhere their parents are influenced by where thy came from. Especially with how different the times are from my father to now.

What about me being raised to always fight, I doubt it be the same result of if I wasn't.

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is probably not true based on what I've said and linked, above, but I do not really know. I could not find any information on this.

The genetic differences between a Northern European and Australian Aborigine would probably show us the the greatest contrast mentioned above (the .4% number) due to how far back their two populations diverged (there might be a greater contrast out there but this is the best one I could think of, off the top of my head) but I am not so sure about Arabs and Europeans. It could be just .2%, as mentioned above.

I disagree. None of what you've linked above that the difference between people of 2 different ethnicities is similar to the difference between 2 different species of animal.

Again, that's a flawed comparison. You're talking about 2 completely different species of primate and humans from 2 different ethnicities. Not to mention that both Arabs and Persians are actually traced back to the Aryans who emerged in Central Asia. Same goes for people from Northern India and the Frontier provinces of Pakistan as well.

Heck, I recall about a study which mentioned that compared to the differences in other animal species, the human species might as well consist entirely of clones. Species like tigers have subspecies such as the Siberian tiger, the Indochinese tiger, Bengal tiger etc. Human "races" like caucasians and mongolians have less precedence to be classified as subspecies of the overall homo sapiens, than the previously mentioned tigers do.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
How do you remove cultures from such things though?

You don't, really.

But they have found other ways such as test levels and that new "warrior gene" bullshit.

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon
I should note that some people really do make such arguments (see KKK for an example). Obviously, I was not talking about racist ****tards. I was referring to the scientific community.
For the most part, the scientific community has actual documented evidence which disproves the idea that you seem to be supporting here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29#Subspecies

Of course, there are some instances like a peer of Richard Dawkins who claimed to have done a new research which revealed higher levels of genetic difference than previous similar studies performed, but his work has received a lot of controversy not to mention questions have been raised about the way his study was conducted.

Lek Kuen

Originally posted by dadudemon
You don't, really.

But they have found other ways such as test levels and that new "warrior gene" bullshit.

Well earlier you said they accounted for things such as racist cops. Did they account for the effect of such things? If you looked at my community you would say it is much more crime ridden and violent. But my father grew up where cops were not our allies and relying on the law meant nothing would ever be done. It fostered a culture that mistrusted police and people that taught their kids the same. To never call the police and do anything you have to protect yourself and yours. If you know no one will call the cops you have a place where criminals will act more boldly since the more cowardly ones have less fear, and where people are more likely to commit assault and everyone is taught it is ok. That isn't due to being black that is due to a culture not changing with the world around it.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Epicurus
I disagree. None of what you've linked above that the difference between people of 2 different ethnicities is similar to the difference between 2 different species of animal.

I think you accidentally a word, here. I think I know what you're trying to say (correct me if I've interpreted your words, incorrectly). We'll have to agree to disagree.

If you take a look at the history of when scientists decided to separate out the Bonobos and Chimps as separate species, you'll see that humans could easily be separated into different species for the same reasons (skull shape differences, size differences, etc.).*

If you also consider that bonobos and chimps diverged 1.5-2 million years ago and T-rex (the dinosaur) had a life-span of about 5 million years (yet, it is still considered the same species), you also see a similar issue. I should note that the evolution of chimps and humans diverged about 5-7 million years ago so the T-rex species probably was hitting its absolute limit before paleontologists start labeling "newer" specimens as a different species from the older ones.

I am not saying that humans and chimps are the same species. I am not saying that bonobos and chimps are the same species. I am saying is the genetic variation between Bonobos and Chmips is very similar to the genetic variation among humans and we see significant differences in their generalized behavior. Could some of those differences in human populations be due to genetic differences similar to Bonobos and Chimps? Of course it is possible as some research even seems to support that. Not everything should be blamed on environment but let me make it clear that genetics certainly do not absolve a sapient species of their actions (there are exceptions such as the mentally handicap).

Originally posted by Epicurus
Again, that's a flawed comparison. You're talking about 2 completely different species of primate and humans from 2 different ethnicities.

This cuts to the heart of your point:

Bonobos and Chimps are definitely not "two completely different species." Bonobos and Chimps are "Two extremely similar species who share a similar genetic variance that humans share with each other." The genetic variance between the two shows that the taxonomic differentiation, when it comes to the naming, can just as equally be applied to humans and humans could be grouped and labeled as different species. That's crazy talk. We don't do that to humans because we are such a new species, still.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Heck, I recall about a study which mentioned that compared to the differences in other animal species, the human species might as well consist entirely of clones.

Actually, I was going to bring this point up to support my position! lol!

I was thinking of a species of badgers (I think) that had greater genetic variance than Chimps and Bonobos but are considered the same species and can breed just fine, too.

Additionally, your point about humans being "practically clones of each other" can be almost equally applied to chimps and bonobos due to their genetic variation being similar to our own genetic variance.

Also, the mapping and comparison of the human genome, over the last 10 or so years, has shown us that the high school classroom facts (I was told the same thing, in high school), such as humans not being very genetically diverse, is just not true. We are definitely not like virtual clones of each other. It used to be believed that a single troop of closely related chimps had more genetic variation than the entire human race but that is definitely not true (depending on the troop, of course) as we now know. I believe that fact (which can be relegated to factoid, now) was debunked in 2005.

Also, I should point out that humans (Homo sapians sapians) is a very new species compared to chimps.

*The divergence of their two populations occurring 1.5-2 million years ago supports the endeavors of the scientists from the 1930s to separate out the species. So, due to modern genetic science, the 1930s opinions were at least partially substantiated with the results on their genetic dissimilarities.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
That isn't due to being black that is due to a culture not changing with the world around it.

I can link you the study via PM (I don't want XYZ to win at trolling me). They think the controlled for the stuff you talk about, for the most part.

RaventheOnly

Species can basically be boiled down to if you can reproduce with one another then you are the same species. Scientists have no classification of race for humans either, its a sociological construct that society itself imposed. Bonobos are the closest human animal variant. Humans are 99% in common with bonobos. However amongst mammalians we share about 96% dna. Humans have 60% of our DNA in common with Bananas (plant) smile

RaventheOnly

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In an ideal world, Israel and Hamas would forge a real ceasefire brokered by the UN, Palestinian Authority, Arab League, and USA and the terms of this ceasefire would be the unconditional disarmament of Hamas and the unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli settlers from Palestinian land (what constitutes Palestinian land might take a lot of debating, but the simplest way would be to revert the borders back to pre-1948 dimensions) and the return of both Palestine and Israel to John Kerry's peace treaty negotiations with the final aim of making Palestine a genuine country recognized by the entirety of the UN.

At this point I have no idea how Israel thinks it will be safer and more secure with Palestine not as a real centralized country with international recognition.

I agree with this. I would surmise the one-state solution with the rejection of Israel as a religious state to be more open ended to solving the over all problems. Israel wont stop taking land until Gaza is theirs and to have agreed to such a small territory as a strip in the first place was just asking for trouble. Gaza is filled with a bunch of refugees from the neighboring countries of the region and they will not stop until they have some sort of real governing body to look to organize them. Israel in the one-state solution fears the Arabic majority however and probably would never agree to it.

queeq

This tread is getting quite silly. And the posters rather unkind to each other.

It's xyz!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really, telling someone to kill themselves? You're such a tough guy. So brave. But we already knew you were an internet tough guy! big grin

....thanks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Culture, eh?

I do believe you missed my point entirely. It could just be your ignorance and you have a special definition of culture. Let me know! smile

Well, you mentioned middle eastern people as being genetically inferior. That's damning a culture, unless you have a different grasp of the English language to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm very very glad you brought that up (I was hoping someone would)! Just because the "binomial nomenclature" separates them out as separate species, does not mean my point is diminished even in the slightest. They can produce fertile offspring. Any type of anger you can express over this comparison is meaningless in the face of this fact. smile

Well, you asked a question, not really made a point. You're suggesting that BECAUSE Bonobos and Chimps have different genetics despite being able to produce fertile offspring and one is more peaceful, then it's a genetic argument for violence, and it could be compared to different (I'll have to say this) "races" of the human species for example, middle eastern people (even though other moronic racists don't even consider middle easterns as a race, but no one can come up with a consistent list of "races" wink

as more aggressive and violent ignoring the culture, climate, the entire ****ing religious wars that this thread even debates and the fact that they're more hated than the United States. You're basically asking: "I wonder if biologists can find a genetic disposition among different races being more violent?"
Ignoring culture, ignoring the lack of evidence that races even exist, and even more so ignoring the fact that Bonobos and Chimps have different cultures as well as being different species.

Inb4 derp, they can still reproduce

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't help it that you're not smart enough to understand it. Maybe someone here can dumb it down for you? I understand your opinions on politics, I still believe your opinion is nonsensical generalisation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No thanks. Your google should work juuuuust fine. smile

If I respected you and thought your interests in this topic were sincere, I might humor you. I don't, you're not, so I won't. wink

I had to reread that, you refer to my interests in the first sentence, then to me in the second sentence. GRAMMAR FAIL.

It's xyz!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can link you the study via PM (I don't want XYZ to win at trolling me). They think the controlled for the stuff you talk about, for the most part. LOL, what's so bait worthy about your study?

I don't even need to see it, Epicurus has already told you that "races" are not subspecies or anything similar. It simply doesn't exist in biology.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

Stealth Moose

Do they have brown people where you live, dadudeman?

It's xyz!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Do they have brown people where you live, dadudeman? He lives in Oklohama so I believe the Mormons banished them for not having souls.

Raisen

nobody has reasonably disputed DDM yet.
people are letting their sensitivity to perceived racism override these facts. that sucks.

dadudemon

Originally posted by It's xyz!
LOL, what's so bait worthy about your study?

I don't even need to see it, Epicurus has already told you that "races" are not subspecies or anything similar. It simply doesn't exist in biology.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

That gent and I had a nice conversation, in private.

no expression

It was quite amazing to have an adult conversation about a sensitive topic in an academic manner. You do not seem capable of doing something like that.

Additionally, I have, from a medical approach, already thwarted your "race doesn't exist" argument, in the past. You even conceded the main point of contention. Did you forget about the last time I disproved your fringe idea?

Originally posted by Epicurus
Of course, there are some instances like a peer of Richard Dawkins who claimed to have done a new research which revealed higher levels of genetic difference than previous similar studies performed, but his work has received a lot of controversy not to mention questions have been raised about the way his study was conducted.

thumb up

Indeed. It's too taboo to be seriously considered.

Originally posted by queeq
This tread is getting quite silly. And the posters rather unkind to each other.

Well, everyone is being very respectful to eachother except for XYZ. XYZ has a history of not being able to hold adult conversations with others. Even Epicurus and I, who argue quite a bit in other parts of the board, have checked our egos and focused on the facts.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Well, you mentioned middle eastern people as being genetically inferior. That's damning a culture, unless you have a different grasp of the English language to me.

Well, I don't like to think I have a better grasp of English than others. But you're not using the word "culture" very well. That's not the word you mean but I think I know what you're trying to say.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Well, you asked a question, not really made a point. You're suggesting that BECAUSE Bonobos and Chimps have different genetics despite being able to produce fertile offspring and one is more peaceful, then it's a genetic argument for violence, and it could be compared to different (I'll have to say this) "races" of the human species for example, middle eastern people (even though other moronic racists don't even consider middle easterns as a race, but no one can come up with a consistent list of "races" wink

as more aggressive and violent ignoring the culture, climate, the entire ****ing religious wars that this thread even debates and the fact that they're more hated than the United States.

Well, I can understand why you are so violently opposing what I'm saying: you haven't properly grasped what I'm saying and have taken quite a few liberties in interpretation (such as adding things).

Others seem to understand my point, just fine. So I am not worried about your confusions.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
You're basically asking: "I wonder if biologists can find a genetic disposition among different races being more violent?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. I looked for the word "race" in my original comments on that topic and I'm just not finding it. Maybe you should start there and then work your way up into understanding my words. It is not a very complicated idea because it has already been partially studied so I won't belittle you and explain it to you like you're a toddler.

Since I've pointed out what seems to be the central problem in your understanding of my words, we can probably move on. I don't need you to apologize or even admit you were wrong: I'm not that petty.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I understand your opinions on politics,

Based on your replies to me where you try to explain my positions back to me, you really do not understand some of my positions and opinions.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
I had to reread that, you refer to my interests in the first sentence, then to me in the second sentence. GRAMMAR FAIL.

I'll spell it out for your so it is simpler to understand (now I will talk to you like a toddler...I apologize but it is the only way I can break this down any simpler):

If I respected you and thought your interests in this topic were sincerem I might humor you. I don't, you're not, so I won't.

If I respected you - I do not respect you.
If I thought your interests in this topic were sincere - You're not sincere.
I might humor you - I will not humor you.

I color-coded and numbered them for you. smile

dadudemon

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Do they have brown people where you live, dadudeman?

I do. Lots. Many kinds.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
He lives in Oklohama so I believe the Mormons banished them for not having souls.

Your ignorance is showing. Oklahoma is a very anti-Mormon state. Very unfriendly to Mormons.

smile

Originally posted by Raisen
nobody has reasonably disputed DDM yet.
people are letting their sensitivity to perceived racism override these facts. that sucks.

thumb up

Indeed. This is also why it cannot be readily studied in the academic community: fear of being de-funded or de-credentialed. No one wants to be the laughing stock of their peers in the academic community.

Robtard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

One of the whackier/funnier racist scientist:

Franz Ignaz Pruner (1808–1882) was a medical doctor who studied the racial structure of Negroes in Egypt. In a book which he wrote in 1846 he claimed that Negro blood had a negative influence on the Egyptian moral character. He published a monograph on Negroes in 1861. He claimed that the main feature of the Negro's skeleton is prognathism, which he claimed was the Negro's relation to the ape. He also claimed that Negroes had very similar brains to apes and that Negros have a shortened big toe, which is a characteristic connecting Negroes closely to apes.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Robtard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

One of the whackier/funnier racist scientist:

Franz Ignaz Pruner (1808–1882) was a medical doctor who studied the racial structure of Negroes in Egypt. In a book which he wrote in 1846 he claimed that Negro blood had a negative influence on the Egyptian moral character. He published a monograph on Negroes in 1861. He claimed that the main feature of the Negro's skeleton is prognathism, which he claimed was the Negro's relation to the ape. He also claimed that Negroes had very similar brains to apes and that Negros have a shortened big toe, which is a characteristic connecting Negroes closely to apes.

Sounds accurate.

Those dang Negroes and their poisonous blood. Voodoo and witchcraft, I tell yas.

It's xyz!

/ragequit

SamZED

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't want to have a discussion, you just want to bash Israel it seems.

It is "very noble" of Israel considering their enemy wants them eradicated, if we compare the two.

While I don't know exactly what Israel would do if Palestine smashed Hamas as I'm not a seer (will be soon though), it would be a step towards a possible peace and compromise between Israel and Palestine and it would definitely put Israel in the spotlight for being the one that has to push for an equal peace solution.

Tell me, what's your solution? Since you think mine of Palestine breaking itself free of Hamas as a first step is terrible. No more than you bash Hamas. That's the problem. I don't have delusions about Hamas, while most people seem to be delusional about Israel. Every time someone mentions "peace in the Middle East" for most people it only means peace for Israel. Situation in Palestine is a thousand times worse yet its barely acknowledged by anyone. Because screw them, according to the media they're all terrorists anyway. And Israel has the right to defend itself from them.. while it continues to invade their territory. You're getting invaded and bombed so naturally... you are the problem and it's on you to stop this violence. And no one seems to have a problem with that logic. A husband beats up his wife and instead of dealing with him people give her some tips on how to be a better wife in order to avoid taking another beating. A rough analogy but it's basically that. And God forbid someone points how messed up it is you're instantly labeled "anti-Semitic" or in this case just "bashing". Because normal rules and common sense do not apply to Israel.

Nobility has nothing to do with the fact they are not nuking the area. You know it as well as I do, not even going to address that.

I don't believe it will solve anything. More settlements will be built, more people get killed and eventually another organization will take Hamas' place and start firing missiles at Israel. I do believe that both sides need to compromise, but peace will never be achieved without a third party. And right now the only state that has the power and influence to do something about it is basically saying "screw those rag-heads" and that's not changing regardless of what Palestinians do, therefore they will never compromise knowing that it will lead to them living under the same inhumane conditions or more likely in worse ones seeing how new settlements are still being built despite the several UN resolutions. So until Palestinians' rights for the land (not to mention their basic human rights they're being constantly denied) are recognized as well as israeli's there will be no compromises.

queeq

But the Palestinian's claims for land far extends the border of the West-Bank and Gaza. And they want that just as bad as the dismantlement of the settlements.

Besides, seen the picture of the tunnels Israel is destroying: long, intricate, well crafted concrete tunnel system with electricity everywhere? Costing millions and millions of dollars while their population is short on food, water etc.
Everywhere you look in this conflict, everything is convoluted and weird.

SamZED

Like I said I have no delusions about Hamas. They can claim whatever they want, there are UN established boarders. And while Palestinians only claim for land Israel is actually taking it by force. To this day and is not planning to stop any time soon. Imagine for one second how the world would react if the roles were reversed. You'd hear words like "apartheid" and "genocide" thrown in every mass media before the inevitable interference into the conflict one day later.

It's xyz!

Palestine want to be a member of the UN but the US keep vetoing their membership.

USA is really biased towards Israel and you see that in almost every American thinking Israel is good and Hamas is still doing what it did 20 years ago.

dadudemon

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Palestine want to be a member of the UN but the US keep vetoing their membership.

I did not know this.

That's pretty douchey.

queeq

Originally posted by SamZED
And while Palestinians only claim for land Israel is actually taking it by force.

Errr... I think all the terrorist activities from 1964 (the year PLO was founded) have been about getting land from Israel by force. As early as 1948 the surrounding countries used force to destroy Israel. But Israel has had more force in the last 50 years.

It's xyz!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did not know this.

That's pretty douchey. They did manage to get non-member observer state status, which the USA were one of 9 countries to be against.

Don't know how that happened, but I'm not that familiar with the UN.

SamZED

Originally posted by queeq
Errr... I think all the terrorist activities from 1964 (the year PLO was founded) have been about getting land from Israel by force. As early as 1948 the surrounding countries used force to destroy Israel. But Israel has had more force in the last 50 years. I don't follow you. I was talking about the recognition of Palestinians right to the land based on the UN resolutions adopted after 1964.

Raisen

this whole situation is obvious imo

queeq

Originally posted by SamZED
I don't follow you. I was talking about the recognition of Palestinians right to the land based on the UN resolutions adopted after 1964.

You were saying the Palestinians only CLAIM for land and that Israel is taking it by force.

Besides the Palestinians don't recognise Israel either, recognising the 1948 UN resolution. Both sides do what they blame the other side for doing. The only difference is that Israel has a much bigger and stronger army. But even that doesn't bring a resolution closer. Only further away.

And that is what I am saying: the situation there is completely screwed and both sides are to blame.

Bentley

Would you recognize a country who is actively invading you because they consider themselves owners of your land? Which frontiers would define that country?

I know some arab political leaders go too far as far as their anti-Israel speeches go -not to recognize Israel is a nod in that direction-. But those harsh speeches aren't genocide, placing blame on one, both sides, the US, Europe or the saiyan... Would we even care about this battle if a professional army wasn't bombing civilians on a regular basis now?

Lord Lucien

Originally posted by Bentley
or the saiyan... blink

Robtard

To answer Bentley's question: From what we know of the Saiyans, they would not care if civilians were bombed. We have several instances of Saiyans willfully attacking civilians to support this.

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you accidentally a word, here. I think I know what you're trying to say (correct me if I've interpreted your words, incorrectly). We'll have to agree to disagree.

*shows*

I believe that was the word.
Originally posted by dadudemon

If you take a look at the history of when scientists decided to separate out the Bonobos and Chimps as separate species, you'll see that humans could easily be separated into different species for the same reasons (skull shape differences, size differences, etc.).*

Not really. That practice of human racial classification was actually pretty popular in the States and much of the western world prior to(and prevalent for some decades even after) the American Civil War of 1863. It was known as phrenology, and much of it was based on the same skull shape and size differences.

None of which are consistent with modern scientific studies.
Originally posted by dadudemon

If you also consider that bonobos and chimps diverged 1.5-2 million years ago and T-rex (the dinosaur) had a life-span of about 5 million years (yet, it is still considered the same species), you also see a similar issue. I should note that the evolution of chimps and humans diverged about 5-7 million years ago so the T-rex species probably was hitting its absolute limit before paleontologists start labeling "newer" specimens as a different species from the older ones.

I am pretty sure that no biological life form is capable of having a lifespan ranging in several millions of years, much less an ancient carnivorous dinosaur. I am guessing you probably meant something else when you wrote the word "lifespan" in retrospect to the T-Rex, but whatever.

Also, to the previous point you made about species producing fertile offspring and this not being compatible with the lion/tiger reference; that's not strictly true because female ligers are fertile and capable of reproducing with either of their parent species. Tigons are also similarly fertile, and there's even a video clip on youtube of a male lion's coupling with a female tigon/tiger hybrid(it looked like a normal tiger).

Anyways, apart from the genetic difference, tigers and lions are anatomically and behaviorally almost identical species of big cat, and the difference between them from a sociological point of view is about the same as the difference between bonobos and chimpanzees.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I am not saying that humans and chimps are the same species. I am not saying that bonobos and chimps are the same species. I am saying is the genetic variation between Bonobos and Chmips is very similar to the genetic variation among humans and we see significant differences in their generalized behavior. Could some of those differences in human populations be due to genetic differences similar to Bonobos and Chimps? Of course it is possible as some research even seems to support that. Not everything should be blamed on environment but let me make it clear that genetics certainly do not absolve a sapient species of their actions (there are exceptions such as the mentally handicap).

So what exactly are you trying to say? Because what I gather from your posts is basically an underhanded way of saying that different races of people should be classified as different (sub)species of human, simply because of the similarity of genetic difference between two different primate species and different ethnicities the overall human species. You're also not taking into account the fact that the human population is orders of magnitude bigger than the chimpanzee and bonobo population put together, and how such a large sample space may or may not affect even the the most marginal variance or standard deviation done in any statistical survey to ascertain genetic variations among people across the globe.

Originally posted by dadudemon

This cuts to the heart of your point:

Bonobos and Chimps are definitely not "two completely different species." Bonobos and Chimps are "Two extremely similar species who share a similar genetic variance that humans share with each other." The genetic variance between the two shows that the taxonomic differentiation, when it comes to the naming, can just as equally be applied to humans and humans could be grouped and labeled as different species. That's crazy talk. We don't do that to humans because we are such a new species, still.

So you are trying to say that Arabs and Europeans are 2 extremely genetically similar species. Don't know if that last part about crazy talk is sarcasm or you being serious, but anyways. I already linked to all the attempts which have been made at taxonomically separating different groups of humans, and how they have been debunked by actual science.

Still, if you're actually serious about this discussion, you should refer to my Richard Dawkins comment on the previous page. I think that guy's(Dawkins' peer) work would best support your argument(though imo it is still based on a flawed premise).

Originally posted by dadudemon

Actually, I was going to bring this point up to support my position! lol!

I was thinking of a species of badgers (I think) that had greater genetic variance than Chimps and Bonobos but are considered the same species and can breed just fine, too.

Additionally, your point about humans being "practically clones of each other" can be almost equally applied to chimps and bonobos due to their genetic variation being similar to our own genetic variance.

Also, the mapping and comparison of the human genome, over the last 10 or so years, has shown us that the high school classroom facts (I was told the same thing, in high school), such as humans not being very genetically diverse, is just not true. We are definitely not like virtual clones of each other. It used to be believed that a single troop of closely related chimps had more genetic variation than the entire human race but that is definitely not true (depending on the troop, of course) as we now know. I believe that fact (which can be relegated to factoid, now) was debunked in 2005.

Which is why I said in comparison to other animal species. Of course I don't literally believe that we are clones of each other. If that was the case, then anyone could provide organ transplants to anyone, along with blood transfusion etc. Judging from the photos you've posted on these forums, I am guessing you're a huge guy. 6'4"-6'5", 240-280 lbs? Based on that I can definitely state for sure that I am not your clone.

However, while we're discussing clones and levels of genetic similarity, I should bring up the fact that physiological variation has been shown to exist even between identical twins(who are pretty much naturally created clones). There have been cases where one twin was taller than the other, one had different hair color, or a mole the other didn't have, or skin tone etc.

But anyways, even if we were to take your argument at face value, your point about Arabs still does not stand because based on human genetic clustering, both Bedouins and Palestinians are most similar to a number of European ethnicities, more so that some Europeans are to each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Human_genetic_clustering#Clusters_by_Rosenberg_et_
al._.282006.29
Originally posted by dadudemon

Also, I should point out that humans (Homo sapians sapians) is a very new species compared to chimps.

*The divergence of their two populations occurring 1.5-2 million years ago supports the endeavors of the scientists from the 1930s to separate out the species. So, due to modern genetic science, the 1930s opinions were at least partially substantiated with the results on their genetic dissimilarities.
Fair point, but I doubt that it adds much to the argument here.

Raisen

first guy to bring up valid counter arguments.
everything else seemed like race sensitivity

It's xyz!

I don't understand why Middle Eastern people are thought of as the most violent considering human violence has occured all over the civilised world. What makes them so special?

Also, genetics does not make someone violent. Violence comes from a combination of genetics and environment.

They did a study on mice where they wiped out a learning gene and the mice didn't learn very well until they were put in a more enlightening environment and they over came that defecit. Genes give us different ways of responding to our environment and genes get turned on and off depending on the environment.

Even if dadudemon found his evidence for Middle Eastern people to have a violent gene that all other groups of humans don't, it wouldn't make them more violent unless their environment causes that gene to be active. Something like a war based on territory and ideology, for example.

Raisen

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Also, genetics does not make someone violent. Violence comes from a combination of GENETICS and environment.
.

really? you are making his point. some things that seem racial are simply just true

It's xyz!

Originally posted by Raisen
really? you are making his point. some things that seem racial are simply just true Okay so you either ignore or completely misunderstood my sentence (a COMBINATION of genetics and environment). I also elaborate this in that same post.

Some things that seem racial are simply just true? I agree. Some people have differently coloured skin to other people. Some also have different facial structures such as eyes and noses, and some people with black skin have a tendency towards curly hair too.

......but that's it.

dadudemon

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Also, genetics does not make someone violent. Violence comes from a combination of genetics and environment.

Do you agree with my other point I was making? This statement makes me think you do.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
Even if dadudemon found his evidence for Middle Eastern people to have a violent gene that all other groups of humans don't, it wouldn't make them more violent unless their environment causes that gene to be active. Something like a war based on territory and ideology, for example.

This isn't necessarily true. It isn't so binary like that.

What you would see, however, is a greater occurrence of violence from the "violent-having-gene" people compared to the population average. It would act more like a sliding scale than an absolute "environment influences everything" or "genetics influence everything."

Basically, unless a people becomes perfectly enlightened as to how their genes influence their behavior, and develop mitigating techniques to control the entire set of negative traits to become back in line (or do better than) with the population average, they will always experience the negative influences of the genes on their behavior.

The best comparison I can come up with are fictional: Vulcans. No humans have reached the level of enlightenment that they have, but it would have to be at that level of enlightenment and control in order to completely shuck off their genetic influences.

Also, my sister participated in some research that addresses something that you talked about:

Originally posted by It's xyz!
...it wouldn't make them more violent unless their environment causes that gene to be active.

This is partially true. Some traits do not or cannot exist as purely genotypes. Some traits do not or cannot exist as phenotypes. In some instances, a species can carry a genotype, but no phenotype for that trait, for generations. And then an environmental influence causes the phenotype to be expressed (this was the crux of her research).

Still, other traits are always expressed as phenotypes but to varying degrees. And then there are some genotypes that are never expressed unless we start to play god in a lab and discover it (these are the funnest discoveries in genetics, imo).

It is more likely that, due to the complexity of our social behaviors, we never really stop expressing some behavioral traits but they just vary in strength for "subject to subject." Such as this violent behavior. There are definitely multiple genetic factors that influence violence: not just the "warrior-gene" that that article talked about. Many genes do not express as simply 0 or 1 (binary, as I called it, earlier). This is what I meant by a sliding scale, above.

S_W_LeGenD

Originally posted by Epicurus
Considering the number of times they have had their collective butts kicked by Israel in direct warfare, I'd say there could be good reason for this "lukewarm" attitude.

But seriously, why do the military forces from Middle-Eastern countries suck so much? IIRC, there's a story going around that 2 mid-level Pakistan Air Force pilots who had been "loaned" to the Jordanians and the Syrians during the 6Day war, allegedly had a higher kill count of Israeli fighter aircraft in direct combat than all the other Middle Eastern air combatants combined.
Actually, situation is more complicated.

Israel always had backing of powerful Western nations, funding and weapons pouring in. Yes, Israeli troops did prove to be capable because they fought with the mindset of "survival at stake." Motivation can change the situation.

Just look at ground realities of Germany versus USSR front in WW-II. Germany had superior war machine but USSR motivated its entire populace to resist the invasion with the mindset of "survival at stake" and USSR also benefitted from funding and weapons that poured in from other allies to help it resist the invasion. Weather conditions also played a role since Soviets were in advantageous position to tolerate extreme winter, genetics at work.

Collapse/dissolution of Ottoman Empire in 1918 paved way for formulation of many smaller nations and the Empire's resources got split among these smaller nations. These nations were now operating for the first time independently and not surprisingly lacked in knowledge of modern warfare doctrines and preparedness/industrial capabilities. This is the reason why Arab nations did not perform well in some conflicts.

Some arab nations did focus on flexing their military muscles with passage of time such as Egypt and Iraq with support from USSR. They became a match for Israel, at-least theoretically. Around 1990, Iraq was noted to possess 4th largest military in the world. However, Gulf War demonstrated incredible disparity between Industrial capabilities and military doctrines of USSR and USA around this time, USSR had been in decline with passage of time since it did not paid attention to promote its market value in the same manner as USA did. USA, in contrast, had established its market value globally and learned valuable lessons from the Vietnam war, it absolutely revolutionized its military doctrine and pioneered the concept of digitalized warfare during 1980s.

Currently, Saudi Arabia is flexing its muscles. However, Saudi now understand that it needs its own industrial capability to become genuinely strong in the future.

---

Pakistani pilots participated in the 3rd Israeli-Arab conflict that occurred in 1973.

Mr Al Saif

I am disturbed by the derailing of this thread. As a British Muslim, my father is a Doctor who treats everyone equally regardless of faith or lack of and I want to follow in his footsteps much of this thread disgusts me.

Robtard

How's it going, Whirls?

Mr Al Saif

Originally posted by Robtard
How's it going, Whirls?

What?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Epicurus
*shows*

I believe that was the word.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Not really. That practice of human racial classification was actually pretty popular in the States and much of the western world prior to(and prevalent for some decades even after) the American Civil War of 1863. It was known as phrenology, and much of it was based on the same skull shape and size differences.

None of which are consistent with modern scientific studies.

Really?

I don't think so. I don't think we are even talking about the same things, at this point.

Let me give you an example:

The T'rung people vs. Northern European people. These are not races (as XYZ tried to boil my point down to...I did not nor do I want to entertain the discussion of race). This is just simply a collection of people that have evolved in specific geography/clime for a period of time and it has resulted in significant physical and behavioral differences (we like to call these behaviors "culture" but just call them "behaviors" in animals...but biologists are starting to drop the "human-elitist" approach and I am seeing animals sometimes referred to with the label of "culture" wink

.

To give an example:

Western European vs. The Tibetan-Burman people (T'rung's):

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

Their skulls can generally be identified, anthropologically, and assigned a specific geographic and location. This is the same for Chimps and Bonobos. So if you had a decent anthropologist come across a Western European Skull from the 1500s and a T'rung skull from the 1500s, he or she would far more likely place them into the correct geography and identify the "ethnicity" of the people. This is also true of Bonobos vs. Chimps for particular biologists. In fact, when the arguments over separating out Bonobos and Chimps occurred, they were still some confusion because they looked so similar.

But it wasn't just the skulls that helped them separate out Bonobos and Chimps. It was also the size of the Chimps vs. the Bonobos. The Bonobos are smaller in height and relative volume (Chimps are thicker). Physiologically, they have less testosterone than the Chimps, too. Besides actually giving birth, there are no breeding limitations between the two groups (if a very large Chimp male impregnates a very small Bonobo female, the female may have difficulty birthing the slightly larger (than other Bonobo babies) hybrid.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo

How does this compare to our Western European and T'rung peoples? Extremely similar. The T'rung have less testosterone (on average), are shorter in height - much more so than their Western counterparts (and in an even greater contrast than Chimps and Bonobos), have much less mass (both relative mass and absolute mass), and have differentiated skulls shapes. These are all very similar things that separate Chimps from Bonobos but there is a larger size contrast among the humans that I'm comparing.

This all very thoroughly proves the point I was making: they are very good parallels.

The reason Chimps and Bonobos seem to vary less than humans is humans expanded much farther, around the entire freakin' globe, than the two Pan species. So we would expect to see, in a much shorter time (evolution) frame, greater differences within the human species compared to the Pan species.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I am pretty sure that no biological life form is capable of having a lifespan ranging in several millions of years, much less an ancient carnivorous dinosaur. I am guessing you probably meant something else when you wrote the word "lifespan" in retrospect to the T-Rex, but whatever.

The word lifespan, in that context, does not refer to an individual speciman's lifespan but rather, the chronology that you can find the species in strata. If you need to replace the word "lifespan" with another word for it to be comfortable to read, please do so. But I think you are understood exactly what I meant. If not, let me know, and I can try to better explain that.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Also, to the previous point you made about species producing fertile offspring and this not being compatible with the lion/tiger reference; that's not strictly true because female ligers are fertile and capable of reproducing with either of their parent species. Tigons are also similarly fertile, and there's even a video clip on youtube of a male lion's coupling with a female tigon/tiger hybrid(it looked like a normal tiger).

This is not true: both Tigons and Ligers have fertility issues. That's what I said the following:

"Notice I said, "fertile offspring." That's because they are so genetically similar that they can easily produce fertile offspring."

Emphasis mine. This was an indirect reference to the fact that both Tigons and Ligers have issues producing fertile offspring.

"Ligers and tigons are hybrids, and as such most of them are sterile, because the parent species (lions and tigers) have different numbers of chromosomes (this means that the hybrid cannot produce functional sex cells). Occasionally, there will be a fertile female liger or tigon, which can be bred back to a male lion or tiger, but there are no fertile male ligers or tigons. Certainly a liger and a tigon could mate, but since the male, at least, would be sterile, there would be no cubs."

http://www.liger.org/could-a-tigon-and-a-liger-mate-and-have-fertile-offspring/

Again, emphasis mine.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Anyways, apart from the genetic difference, tigers and lions are anatomically and behaviorally almost identical species of big cat,

I labeled your points to make it easier to discuss them.

1. The genetic differences are very significant. The reason why Bonobos and Chimps easily produce fertile offspring is due to them being extremely similar, genetically. Compare and contrast this with Tigers and Lions. Tigers and Lions diverged from each other quite a long time ago (millions of years). Lions, Leopards, and Jaguar's are more genetically similar to each other than the lion and tiger are.

2. No they are not almost identical. Almost identical would be, say, fraternal twins.

Here is a list of differences between lions and tigers (use the chart to show the similarities vs. the differences):

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Lion_vs_Tiger

At best, we could say that the lion and tiger are similar. They are definitely not "almost identical."

3. Behaviorally, they are very different. These difference are due to the different habitats that they evolved in. Tigers are much less social animals than lions. There is no such thing as a "Tiger Pride." In fact, tigers and lions are perhaps the greatest contrast, out of the big cats, behaviorally.

Originally posted by Epicurus
and the difference between them from a sociological point of view is about the same as the difference between bonobos and chimpanzees.

This is not the case. While the Chimpanzees are more aggressive and violent, they are very similar, socially, to Bonobos. The differences between the two are what I am focusing on, here. But they still behave very similar to each other:

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/behav

In fact, some biologists are getting irritated with people focusing on how much they differ when they do not differ in behavior all that much (such as incorrectly assuming bonobos are peaceful when they are, in fact, not so peaceful : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353342/Bonobos-not-all-peace-and-free-love.html ).

Originally posted by Epicurus
Fair point, but I doubt that it adds much to the argument here.

That was me conceding a potential point of contention: the debate around separating out Bonobos and Chimps. The biologists in the 1930s made the correct call by separating them out because we found out (very recently, in fact) that the two groups diverged 1.5-2 mya which is generally a very good rule to follow when separating out groups of closely related animals into "species."

Mr Al Saif

Stop comparing people to animals, anyone can see how racist you are being. This is sickening!

Lek Kuen

Originally posted by dadudemon

The T'rung people vs. Northern European people. These are not races (as XYZ tried to boil my point down to...I did not nor do I want to entertain the discussion of race). This is just simply a collection of people that have evolved in specific geography/clime for a period of time and it has resulted in significant physical and behavioral differences (we like to call these behaviors "culture" but just call them "behaviors" in animals...but biologists are starting to drop the "human-elitist" approach and I am seeing animals sometimes referred to with the label of "culture" wink

.

Are you trying to say that all groups of people are just acting based on innate genetics, and claiming that cultures don't exist? =/

dadudemon

Originally posted by Epicurus
So what exactly are you trying to say? Because what I gather from your posts is basically an underhanded way of saying that different races of people should be classified as different (sub)species of human, simply because of the similarity of genetic difference between two different primate species and different ethnicities the overall human species.

I prefer to leave it at my original words. To paraphrase myself, there are definitely genetic differences between different humans located in different geographies. Some of these differences in genetics could contribute to differences in aggression and violence.

Notice that those words do not contain things such as "species", "subspecies", or "ethnicities."

Originally posted by Epicurus
You're also not taking into account the fact that the human population is orders of magnitude bigger than the chimpanzee and bonobo population put together, and how such a large sample space may or may not affect even the the most marginal variance or standard deviation done in any statistical survey to ascertain genetic variations among people across the globe.

Was it you that said that chimps had greater genetic variance in a single troop than the entire human race did? If that's the case, then we would see greater variations among chimps, alone, than humans. That's simply not the case, as I discussed, prior. The situation is more nuanced than that. Not only is that factoid incorrect, humans show greater variation in physical appearance than chimps (or bonobos). That's because we've been evolving in different climes than chimps (we've covered this "genetic variance" topic to death, already...I don't think I need to recap).

Also, you've commented on statistics and I wanted to reply to that avenue. There are definitely more than enough "samples" in the populations between bonobos and chimps to make comparison to another population of species: humans. Note that in my words, here, "population" "sample" are being used in the statistical sense. Both (the Pans genus) sets of populations have more than enough individuals to make a proper comparison. If there were fewer than 1000, we might start to entertain that possibility (but, even then, there are other methods that would allow an "apples to apples" comparison with powerful statistical significance...then there are entirely different methodologies of approaches to statistics that allow very small sample sizes, such as Bayesian Statics). But there are over 100,000 of each. If "Estimating" sample sizes, to obtain statistical power, is an entire branch of statistics.* Basically, 10,000 observations (number of organisms) is more than enough to give you a highly accurate sample. You do not need anything more than that (but, in biology, you would need to make sure you properly sampled from all of the species' habitats, if you're comparing genetic differences...that would mean we would need to properly random sample 1000 bonobos (or proportional samples to the population in each habitat for a total of 10,000) from each of their 10 habitats to compare and contrast their genetics if our desired sample size was 10,000 bonobos). And you can definitely make powerful comparisons with even smaller samples without too much confidence lost.

Originally posted by Epicurus
So you are trying to say that Arabs and Europeans are 2 extremely genetically similar species. Don't know if that last part about crazy talk is sarcasm or you being serious, but anyways.

I am definitely saying that humans are extremely genetically similar, even in the most extreme examples (similar to Bonobos and Chimps but just slightly less dissimilar than chimps and bonobos). But the differences, clearly, are the focus. Can these genetic differences account, at least in part, for statistically significant differences in behaviors? Yes, I was being serious with that last part: we wouldn't dare separate out humans into different species like we do the Pan genus. In fact, we should belong in the Pan genus...but humans gonna be arrogant, yo.

Originally posted by Epicurus
I already linked to all the attempts which have been made at taxonomically separating different groups of humans, and how they have been debunked by actual science.

You did not need to point that out as the focus of this discussion has never been on "species", as I stated to XYZ. But your efforts are appreciated and I enjoyed the read.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Still, if you're actually serious about this discussion, you should refer to my Richard Dawkins comment on the previous page. I think that guy's(Dawkins' peer) work would best support your argument(though imo it is still based on a flawed premise).

I agree with you, here. However, I think the idea of mine is far too...devoid of genetic facts to make a proper comparison. I also think genetics are far more nuanced than just boiling them down to 1 or 2 aggression genes. It is probably a myriad of behavioral genes mixed with environment that determines human aggression. That's my opinion, at least.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Which is why I said in comparison to other animal species. Of course I don't literally believe that we are clones of each other. If that was the case, then anyone could provide organ transplants to anyone, along with blood transfusion etc. Judging from the photos you've posted on these forums, I am guessing you're a huge guy. 6'4"-6'5", 240-280 lbs? Based on that I can definitely state for sure that I am not your clone.

That's why I said "We are definitely not like virtual clones of each other." Note that that does not say "exact clones of each other" or "literal clones of each other": it says "like virtual clones of each other."

I'm 5'10", 206lbs, by the way. But, who knows! We could be organ donor matches for each other. inlove

Originally posted by Epicurus
However, while we're discussing clones and levels of genetic similarity, I should bring up the fact that physiological variation has been shown to exist even between identical twins(who are pretty much naturally created clones). There have been cases where one twin was taller than the other, one had different hair color, or a mole the other didn't have, or skin tone etc.

Yes, as much as it pains me to admit it, XYZ was definitely right about environment playing a large role on how we develop as humans (both physiologically and behaviorally). I just think there is anywhere from a dash to "two huge scoops" of genetics involved in human behavior.

Originally posted by Epicurus
But anyways, even if we were to take your argument at face value, your point about Arabs still does not stand because based on human genetic clustering, both Bedouins and Palestinians are most similar to a number of European ethnicities, more so that some Europeans are to each other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Human_genetic_clustering#Clusters_by_Rosenberg_et_
al._.282006.29

I would say, based on your link, that it says differently than what you're trying to indicate (correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of what you're trying to say, here):

"African Somalis are genetically more similar to the people of Saudi Arabia than to peoples of Southern or Western Africa. Saudis are more similar to Somalis than to Norwegians. Ethiopians of Africa are more similar to Azeris or Jews of Eurasia than to Bantu peoples of Africa."

Additionally, Arabs and Jews are "essentially the same people" which is where I got the idea that, perhaps, Arab peoples may have something genetic about them that makes them more aggressive than the average human:

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

Anyway, do you think we covered the topic thoroughly, enough?

*This branch is of particular interest to myself because of my political interests. I think the "scientific" polling they do, as it relates to politics or political discussions, if grossly flawed and in need of a major overhaul. Rasmussen seems to do the best, generally, out there but they are even significantly flawed. A conspiracy theorist would indicate that they are flawed on purpose so people do not know that a race is not close, at all, to keep people voting (I heard this, somewhere, before...where did I read it? Seems plausible but, like all conspiracy theories of that caliber, they are generally pretty ****ing stupid).

Mr Al Saif

This has nothing to do with Israel/Gaza and is disgusting.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Mr Al Saif
Stop comparing people to animals, anyone can see how racist you are being. This is sickening!

Sorry, we, too, are animals.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Are you trying to say that all groups of people are just acting based on innate genetics,

No. In fact, I've directly commented on this, priorly, which indicated something significantly different than your question implies of your understanding of my position, so why would you make this incorrect assumption?

I was making a commentary about how biased our labels are when we study humans vs. other animals. We seem to put humans on a pedestal that we really shouldn't. I comment further on this by indicating we should probably be under the Pan genus but we are not. It was a 2-part post.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
and claiming that cultures don't exist? =/

Yeah, that's definitely not it. You're way off, here.

Go back and read my two part post to Epicurus (I had to take a break and come back and continue posting).

Mr Al Saif

You are clearly a troll derailing a political thread with irrelevant and highly suspect scientific studies on genetics.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Mr Al Saif
This has nothing to do with Israel/Gaza and is disgusting.

You hate the fact that Palestinians, Jews, and Arabs are essentially the same people and Jews/Arabs hate that fact. We got it that you're racist and don't like those comparisons. Cool. Other people prefer a more scientific approach to these discussions.

Originally posted by Mr Al Saif
You are clearly a troll derailing a political thread with irrelevant and highly suspect scientific studies on genetics.

"Member since August 2014."

Oh, hey, Whirly. smile

Mr Al Saif

Originally posted by dadudemon
You hate the fact that Palestinians, Jews, and Arabs are essentially the same people and Jews/Arabs hate that fact. We got it that you're racist and don't like those comparisons. Cool. Other people prefer a more scientific approach to these discussions.

"Member sinec August 2014."

Oh, hey, Whirly. smile

I have just had this Whirls thing explained to me by Shakyamuni, I have no idea who this Whirls or as you say Whirly is. I am Al Saif, which means The Sword in Arabic!

dadudemon

I do have a question...

Isn't one of the sources of conflict between Jews and Palestinians that fact that many Palestinians say they are related to the Jews and have a right to the lands just the same as the Jews? I may be culturally devoid of Israel's problem with this, but why is that an issue for Jews to believe such a thing? Why does it have to conflict with their idea of being a "chosen people"? It doesn't seem like it should.

Lek Kuen

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry, we, too, are animals.

Deal with it.

No. In fact, I've directly commented on this, priorly, which indicated something significantly different than your question implies of your understanding of my position, so why would you make this incorrect assumption?

I was making a commentary about how biased our labels are when we study humans vs. other animals. We seem to put humans on a pedestal that we really shouldn't. I comment further on this by indicating we should probably be under the Pan genus but we are not. It was a 2-part post.

Yeah, that's definitely not it. You're way off, here.

Go back and read my two part post to Epicurus (I had to take a break and come back and continue posting).

I assume that because a lot of the arguments and sources you mention seem to point to that view. Of human groups being so different as to be separate types all together.

The one you pmed me to show me the study even stated in it how people should be treated differently and we should watch out because with more brown people our nation will become filled with crime. You are a lot smarter and more respectful than them but a lot of the things aid and way of thinking associated with it. Points to less simple thoughts and more "they aren't us and shouldn't be considered it" This isn't simple racial pc bs talking this is how alot of the statements legit look and are almost always followed with

Mr Al Saif

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do have a question...

Isn't one of the sources of conflict between Jews and Palestinians that fact that many Palestinians say they are related to the Jews and have a right to the lands just the same as the Jews? I may be culturally devoid of Israel's problem with this, but why is that an issue for Jews to believe such a thing? Why does it have to conflict with their idea of being a "chosen people"? It doesn't seem like it should.

I have no problem with Jews and Palestinians coming from the same source - Ibrahim

dadudemon

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
I assume that because a lot of the arguments and sources you mention seem to point to that view.

No they do not especially when my very words contradict that conclusion of yours.

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
Of human groups being so different as to be separate types all together.

Well, this is so vague that it most certainly is true: anyone who denied that would be a fool. Be more specific in what you mean here so I can properly disagree with it. smile

Originally posted by Lek Kuen
The one you pmed me to show me the study even stated in it how people should be treated differently and we should watch out because with more brown people our nation will become filled with crime. You are a lot smarter and more respectful than them but a lot of the things aid and way of thinking associated with it. Points to less simple thoughts and more "they aren't us and shouldn't be considered it" This isn't simple racial pc bs talking this is how alot of the statements legit look and are almost always followed with

Keep in mind that that study I linked you to was not the other study we were discussing in this thread. I take issue, strongly, with that study and I am actually irritated that I cannot find that other study I referenced, in this thread.

But you can definitely Google search for more things like that: it is not a unique study and the conclusions are not unique. You will clearly take issue with any of them. Take those issues up with the authors and researchers, though: not me. I did not conduct the research nor do I agree with some of their conclusions.

Edit - If you would like me to directly quote myself to show you how your conclusions are contradictory to my actual positions, I can do so.

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really?

I don't think so. I don't think we are even talking about the same things, at this point.

Let me give you an example:

The T'rung people vs. Northern European people. These are not races (as XYZ tried to boil my point down to...I did not nor do I want to entertain the discussion of race). This is just simply a collection of people that have evolved in specific geography/clime for a period of time and it has resulted in significant physical and behavioral differences (we like to call these behaviors "culture" but just call them "behaviors" in animals...but biologists are starting to drop the "human-elitist" approach and I am seeing animals sometimes referred to with the label of "culture" wink

Because the crux of your original claim(that Arabs could possibly be inherently violent due to genetics; and the comparison between different human ethnicities being similar to the comparison between different chimp species) more or less boils down to exactly that.
Originally posted by dadudemon

But it wasn't just the skulls that helped them separate out Bonobos and Chimps. It was also the size of the Chimps vs. the Bonobos. The Bonobos are smaller in height and relative volume (Chimps are thicker). Physiologically, they have less testosterone than the Chimps, too. Besides actually giving birth, there are no breeding limitations between the two groups (if a very large Chimp male impregnates a very small Bonobo female, the female may have difficulty birthing the slightly larger (than other Bonobo babies) hybrid.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo

How does this compare to our Western European and T'rung peoples? Extremely similar. The T'rung have less testosterone (on average), are shorter in height - much more so than their Western counterparts (and in an even greater contrast than Chimps and Bonobos), have much less mass (both relative mass and absolute mass), and have differentiated skulls shapes. These are all very similar things that separate Chimps from Bonobos but there is a larger size contrast among the humans that I'm comparing.

This all very thoroughly proves the point I was making: they are very good parallels.

Not really, because 1)human females are much more physiologically proficient at giving birth to babies larger than the norm. This is more the way our species evolved in order to cope with the expanding cranial sizes as our brain capacity increased over the millennia. 2) The T'Rung aren't a geographically different human population like Europeans, Arabs or Africans, but rather a tribe of pygmies, so that too is a flawed comparison. A better comparison would be analogizing them with dwarves from Western societies.

Originally posted by dadudemon

The reason Chimps and Bonobos seem to vary less than humans is humans expanded much farther, around the entire freakin' globe, than the two Pan species. So we would expect to see, in a much shorter time (evolution) frame, greater differences within the human species compared to the Pan species.

But the overall differences between the most major human populations isn't really that great. Or at least if you're referring to purely phenotypical differences as opposed to the genotype.

Not to mention that majority of the differences between geographically different human populations could be attributed in large part to the different social/cultural norms(which too are fast thinning out due to globalization), rather than purely hereditary or physiological differences(a Swedish dude can function perfectly well on a kidney transplanted from some poor rickshaw-driver from East India).

Originally posted by dadudemon

The word lifespan, in that context, does not refer to an individual speciman's lifespan but rather, the chronology that you can find the species in strata. If you need to replace the word "lifespan" with another word for it to be comfortable to read, please do so. But I think you are understood exactly what I meant. If not, let me know, and I can try to better explain that.

OK. I had a feeling that you meant something like that, but thanks for clarifying it anyways.

Originally posted by dadudemon

This is not true: both Tigons and Ligers have fertility issues. That's what I said the following:

"Notice I said, "fertile offspring." That's because they are so genetically similar that they can easily produce fertile offspring."

Emphasis mine. This was an indirect reference to the fact that both Tigons and Ligers have issues producing fertile offspring.

"Ligers and tigons are hybrids, and as such most of them are sterile, because the parent species (lions and tigers) have different numbers of chromosomes (this means that the hybrid cannot produce functional sex cells). Occasionally, there will be a fertile female liger or tigon, which can be bred back to a male lion or tiger, but there are no fertile male ligers or tigons. Certainly a liger and a tigon could mate, but since the male, at least, would be sterile, there would be no cubs."

http://www.liger.org/could-a-tigon-and-a-liger-mate-and-have-fertile-offspring/

Again, emphasis mine.

That is why I said "not strictly true". Female ligers are capable of breeding, and there are some documented cases of males being fertile as well.

Also, that statement about tigers and lions having different chromosome counts is also incorrect, because both cats have a diploid number of 38, and so do ligers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Originally posted by dadudemon

I labeled your points to make it easier to discuss them.

1. The genetic differences are very significant. The reason why Bonobos and Chimps easily produce fertile offspring is due to them being extremely similar, genetically. Compare and contrast this with Tigers and Lions. Tigers and Lions diverged from each other quite a long time ago (millions of years). Lions, Leopards, and Jaguar's are more genetically similar to each other than the lion and tiger are.

Chimps and bonobos belong to a different genus as compared to humans though. That's another point which you aren't laying much emphasis on while arguing.

Yeah, I agree that jaguars and leopards are more similar to lions than tigers are. The fact that lions cubs have rosette markings on their fur similar to what panthers/leopards and jaguars do supports this. Tigers are more closely related to snow leopards, as opposed to the lions, jaguars and leopards.
Originally posted by dadudemon

2. No they are not almost identical. Almost identical would be, say, fraternal twins.

Here is a list of differences between lions and tigers (use the chart to show the similarities vs. the differences):

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Lion_vs_Tiger

At best, we could say that the lion and tiger are similar. They are definitely not "almost identical."

Actually they are. A british zoology class did an anatomy test, and upon skinning both cats found few, if any anatomical differences between them. Also to be almost identical you don't need to be fraternal twins.

And those are again mostly socialistic/phenotypical differences(which too aren't many). Based on that I could say that jaguars are more closely related to tigers than lions, considering the similar stocky builds, affinity for water, hunting and fighting styles etc.

*continues in next post*

Epicurus

Originally posted by dadudemon

3. Behaviorally, they are very different. These difference are due to the different habitats that they evolved in. Tigers are much less social animals than lions. There is no such thing as a "Tiger Pride." In fact, tigers and lions are perhaps the greatest contrast, out of the big cats, behaviorally.

Again, that is strictly speaking not true. Have you ever gone to the Bandhavgarh reserve? I have. I have seen at 6 different instances of a female and her cubs forming undergoing a social lifestyle not dissimilar to lions. There is certainly a name for groups of tiger, not "Pride", but Streak or Ambush. Or as the local wardens of those parks refer to such groups; "extravaganzas".

Similarly there are lions who lead solitary lives called "nomads". They can be either males or females.

The hunting style is clearly similar as both cats rely on the bite-strangulation method, which sometimes can result in the breaking of the neck of their prey. Both have similar bite-forces, and paw strikes. The largest non-obese specimens of both these cats usually range between 550-600 lbs(though Kaziranga tigers and South African lions are estimated to be exceptionally huge).

Heck, there's even an entire youtube series devoted to how a tigress raised a female lion cub as her own, and how said cub(after physically maturing) was able to "communicate" with her surrogate mother when the new litter of cubs were in danger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8leQSCrTHo

Originally posted by dadudemon

This is not the case. While the Chimpanzees are more aggressive and violent, they are very similar, socially, to Bonobos. The differences between the two are what I am focusing on, here. But they still behave very similar to each other:

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/behav

In fact, some biologists are getting irritated with people focusing on how much they differ when they do not differ in behavior all that much (such as incorrectly assuming bonobos are peaceful when they are, in fact, not so peaceful : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3353342/Bonobos-not-all-peace-and-free-love.html ).

Then why did you bring up the original point of the difference between these 2 species being similar to the differences between Arabs and Europeans? In fact, what exactly are you trying to prove here? I need to get a better grasp of what you're talking about before we continue this discussion.
Originally posted by dadudemon

That was me conceding a potential point of contention: the debate around separating out Bonobos and Chimps. The biologists in the 1930s made the correct call by separating them out because we found out (very recently, in fact) that the two groups diverged 1.5-2 mya which is generally a very good rule to follow when separating out groups of closely related animals into "species."
Ok.

Anyways, while we're at it, I doubt that any study would yield meaningful insight into whether or not Arabs are inherently more violent than Europeans and other ethnicities. In fact, given the violent past of some European peoples(the Spanish Inquisitions, the World Wars, the mass eradication of Natives from Australia and N. America etc), I doubt that Arabs are any more violet than them historically speaking(note: before lil B comes in here, I'd like to point that I am not ignoring the historical plunders and conquests performed by Muslim Arabs either).