Israel/Gaza

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.

That and racism.

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

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.

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! 😄

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! 🙂

Originally posted by It's xyz!
They're two completely different species, not what you suggest. 😐

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. 🙂

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. 🙂

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. 😉

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.

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.

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. 🙂

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

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. 😐

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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) 🙂

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.

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

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! 😄

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! 🙂

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. 🙂

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?

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

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. 😉