and that boars are more aggressive than pigs, but when you apply the same logic to people, it makes you a terrible person?

Damn

OP is a racist!

Long ago back when yahoo answers was a thing I posted this asking for definitive, appropriate answers.

Best response was explaining how humans have self awareness and aren’t restricted to their instincts while animals don’t possess that higher level of thinking.

Part of me still feels like WELL what if we’re just talking about law of averages here cant we still make that same statement? But I get that that’s generalizing a group of people which ultimately is what triggers folks

Can't we at least acknowledge it instead of pretending otherwise though?

OP as long as you supply some proper context and tact it is ok. Not actually waysiss.


It's a demonstrable fact that people of colour cause more crime than whites. It's not waysiss to state a demonstrable, statistically supportable fact. What is waysiss is attributing the increased crime rates of joggers to biological reasons or claim that there is some genetic or genomic difference which unavoidably predisposes joggers towards crime and violence which isn't shared by whites.

It's not at all waysiss to state there are legitimate differences between races. Because they are, but these result from the concept that race is a social construct. We explain races different propensities towards violence/crime from a wealth of economical, social, cultural and political factors.

The problem would arise if you frame it within a eugenics stance, i.e you claim that joggers are more violent and crimey because of some sort of genetic difference or aberration, then you are waysiss.

I've actually heard it the other way before, too.

Years ago, I was perma-banned from dog group on ******** (lol) because I said "it's fine if people hate pit bulls and it's probably not the same as being racist to black people."

What is the law of averages? Since you guys are so statistically oriented, maybe you can explain it to me.

Because dog breeds have been selectivelt bred by humans for centuries in order to have certain characteristics.

Pitbulls will have those fighting instincts regardless of enviroment. Obviously humans have instincts & genetics that determine behaviour aswell & they probably Do differ based on ethnicity but dogs are way more controlled by instincts. A golden retriever will jump in water & swim first time it sees the ocean due to them being bred to be swimmers hundreds of year ago. Pitbulls have aggression towards other dogs of the same sex due to them being bred as fighting dogs in the past.

Dogs & humans are nothing alike. We have free will. Dogs dont. Big difference.

All I know is that if everyone were like golden retrievers, the world would be wonderful.

This is the first post where I didn't want to cringe that you wrote srs

Can a pitbul vote tho? Can a wild boar vote?


Stupid ass thread

Just for reference, know that free will is a myth.

we should let them
decide their own
aggression.

Free willisn'ta myth, but ok. And FWIW, all life has free will but in more or less degrees. It's not exactly an either/or thing. There are degrees of conceptualisation and control.

There isn't some ethereal, omniscient spirit guiding your decisions. You are DNA + random life experience, and that's it. If you were born as Kormo and had lived his life, you'd be breeding frogs in your mom's basement and chit posting on misc, too. No one is special.

Lol. This idiot is posting dumb stuff again. 2/3 of the POPULATION IS 1 PAYCECK AWAY FROM BEING ON THE STREETS! hahahah

Still thinking about that one, eh? I bet you were thinking of killer comebacks in the shower this morning lol.

FYI, if you see my recent posts in the R/P you will see I disavow dualism for being a philosophically poor and scientifically dubious position. There's nothing in my post which would allow you to infer my disagreement with free will skeptics necessitates some sort of ethereal spirit. I don't advocate for that, rather what I would say is that determinism is not viable after all the things we discovered in the 20th century about complexity theory, systems theory, self-organisation, dynamical systems approaches to cognition and non-linear systems.


Your claim that DNA would somehow magically bootstrap experiences out of the ether is just as absurd as the spiritualist view. Very unbased claim.

There's almost no human behavior that's more than a couple degrees removed from eating or procreating. It's all guided by DNA, which is shaped by the cumulative experience of every generation that came before.

We aren't horny as fukk and hungry for steak because we objectively evaluated the merits of both. It was never a choice for us.