Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (660713)	11/16/2004 9:36:52 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The argument of racism or any other feature exhibited or not exhibited by lower animals is of little concern. It is very simple. If we are to carry on as doe all other animals, we would allow the weak to die, rather than construct fantasy living situations in which we pretend they are living productive, fruitful lives. My argument here excludes those that can. So I need not hear that argument. The dominant feature of all nature is that the weak and infirm are left to perish so that the strong may continue the interest of the group. We spend a great portion of our treasure in doing exactly what is opposite of nature. So the argument is better and easier. Simply chose nature or not. The argument of racism falls into place. They either survive as a race or they do not, but race is only one of a variety of interesting subjects one might examine. The argument the man is natural and his activities within the scope of the argument makes it all more difficult again ;) I would say, we do our best to make ourselves feel better about what we see around us.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (660713)	11/16/2004 9:43:49 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Read this anti-Christian propaganda paid for by tax dollars. Message 20771142

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (660713)	11/16/2004 10:25:36 AM
From: DavesM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Animals that live in social groups, can act very aggressively toward other animals (of the same species)not of the same unit (lions, ants, chimps...) invading their territory - right?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (660713)	11/16/2004 1:51:26 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You said on animal racism: ...I have in mind the idea of one group of creatures rejecting other groups that are genetically and morphologically the same as the first group, and can even interbreed, differing only superficially – such as in the hair, feathers or skin. Then you go on to say such racism is rare in the animal kingdom. I have to disagree. I think it is demonstrably the norm. Bird varieties could interbreed but don't. Crows, sparrows, pigeons, etc., flock and mate only with their own type. Lions and tigers are both cats and could interbreed (and have in zoos as the "liger") but do not in the wild. Horses and buffalos shared the western plains but never interbred or mixed together. Such examples are legion. At a minimum, animals are strict segregationists. They prefer their own to the exclusion of their "cousins" who differ from them only superficially. Packs of wolves and coyotes can coexist peacefully in the wild, but only by respecting territorial boundaries. When there is a violation of boundaries or an intrusion into food sources, it is met by aggression and violence. Stronger, more successful animals can and do marginalize their weaker brethren when the issue is as basic as survival. Such behavior hardly differs from the Sharks and the Jets in West Side Story, which was a morality play about racism. We differ from animals only by virtue of higher intelligence. We, too, are prompted by instincts -- even to the point, unfortunately, of killing our young at times. It is far from irrelevant to study animals behaviors in the quest to better understand our own. You said also that racism is merely the result of self-ignorance and barbarity. What is the meaning of "racism" to you? How would you define it? Does dislike of another race, or all other races, constitute "racism"? I ask you this not in a taunting manner, but sincerely. "Racism" is a term considered pejorative, used frequently, but seldom defined with any precision. I would be very interested in your view.