<p>No.</p>
<p>What annoys me are sanctimonious middle class white students trying another ill-advised attempt at social engineering.</p>
<p>What really bothers me is all the Korean girls at my school who after sophomore year WOULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH TO YOU. And they did speak English before then, very well.</p>
<p>It is natural for people to wish to be around their own kind, and as a libertarian, voluntary association is an exercise of one’s property rights by virtue of the self-ownership doctrine.</p>
<p>what kind of stupid logic is this by the OP?</p>
<p>I’m east asian (hint not chinese) and I know that people generally hang with people of their own race simply because its comfortable. What the hell is this BS about insecurity? The fact is, most people are comfortable being with people of their own race, and theres nothing wrong with that. Why are people comfortable with their own race? well because there already is a level of familiarity with each other’s habits, thinking, etc.</p>
<p>god damn someone thinks people are insecure for being comfortable with their own race? Seems like someone is jealous of the camaderie and unity that comes with sticking together as a minority.</p>
<p>There has been a troubling egalitarian streak during the last fifty years, wherein people are thought to be the same, with only facile differences. Biology dictates inequality, be it interspecies or intra-species, and whether the leftists feel warm and fuzzy about it or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What are you trying to accomplish by making such a statement? Where is your proof for a statement like that as it pertains to humans?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not race; ethnicity would be a more appropriate substitute. Truthfully, it’s actually those with whom you share the most similar experiences and worldviews that you will feel most comfortable with - one’s ethnicity may be weakly correlated with similar experiences, but your statement indicates that you believe there to be a causation factor involved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>-_______________________________________-</p>
<p>Camaraderie and unity do not automatically arise out of some loyalty towards the idea of mostly associating with one’s kind.</p>
<p>ksa - look around you. Variations in human height and other physical attributes, in addition to cognitive capacity, demonstrate that humans are not equal to each-other. The only exception may be identical twins.</p>
<p>I’m annoyed when a cute girl won’t talk to me because I’m not her race/ethnicity.</p>
<p>Other than that, who cares?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, so that’s what you meant. I gained a rather different impression. However, your use of the word “same” still strikes me as odd, given that sameness doesn’t necessarily denote an initial equality.</p>
<p>Of course people aren’t “equal,” then, if those are the criteria you are using to define equality.</p>
<p>It’s not my criteria in the biological context, it’s Oxford’s. That said, having established that humans are unequal in the context of biology, then from whence comes this nonsense about having the same (i.e. equal) value, status, etc.? It is preposterous.</p>
<p>This doesn’t bother me very much. What bothers me is people who refuse to get to know other races and have ignorant views along with it.
I have, and have had friends of various races even if I have more friends of certain ethnicities. Just because most my friends are a certain race, it does not mean I do not branch out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, you did not indicate that the sameness you were speaking about stemmed from basic biological differences. However, I would argue that, despite the differences between humans, there are a variety of niches available so that most individuals can assume a role that maximizes their attributes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, simply because two things are different does not mean that one is inherently more valuable than the other. I’d like to know how you get off claiming that certain biological aspects - take, for instance, eye color - give one human an advantage over another.</p>
<p>ksa - you apparently misread my post. I used the word ‘same’ here: </p>
<p>“There has been a troubling egalitarian streak during the last fifty years, wherein people are thought to be the same”</p>
<p>In this context, I am speaking of the egalitarianism which neglects differences between people i.e. regarding them as generic humans. I do not know where you got this nonsense about sameness stemming form biological differences, nor do I care to know. Additionally, you speak as if maximising one’s attributes is in opposition to biological differences as indicated by your use of ‘however’.</p>
<p>As for the second part of your post, I asked you, and any others who were viewing the post: “then from whence comes this nonsense about having the same (i.e. equal) value, status, etc.?” It is surely not a consequence of biology, for again biology dictates inequality. I never said one is more valuable than the other, in fact, I find the concept of ‘value’ to be quite subjective.</p>
<p>In reply to your inquiry regarding biological aspects, human intelligence, as indicated by things such as pattern recognition and memory, is an advantageous attribute in the modern world. In earlier eras when civilisation was primarily agrarian, physical prowess and virility were more advantageous. Intelligence is mostly hereditary, therefore I have argued it to be biological in nature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, you could stand to moderate your language.</p>
<p>Second, sameness is not interchangeable with equality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There was a lack of clarity on what you meant by “differences” which you have since corrected. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clearly, you misunderstood what I wrote. Let me make myself clear: despite the fact that differences between individuals exist, there are a variety of niches that individuals can occupy to maximize the benefit they receive from their attributes. Variation within a large population can only succeed if there are a variety of niches for the species to occupy - that’s a relatively simple biological concept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with that statement arises from one of the assumptions in the premise behind your question - same is not the equivalent of equal in this discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Physical prowess is largely an acquired trait and thus not entirely subject to the laws of inheritance. Virility can hardly be called an inheritable trait, as it ties in so much with physical fitness. As for intelligence, it is [acknowledged</a> that inheritance does play a significant role](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/more-proof-that-intelligence-is-85134.aspx]acknowledged”>Newsroom | UCLA), but [environmental</a> factors cannot be discounted](<a href=“Psychology - Macalester College”>Psychology - Macalester College). </p>
<p>Your misrepresentation of some basic biological facts is making this discussion a bit difficult.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not my argument. I am denouncing your comment about sameness stemming from biological differences, which is preposterous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Genetic differences primarily, but any difference really. Egalitarianism in the context of biology, of genetics, and even in the context of society is myth, as has been my position all along.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understood you the first time, and I objected to the implication that such a thing is at odds with biological differences. It is at best a red herring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a legitimate inquiry, not a statement. Note the use of the question mark.</p>
<p>Finally, as to the issue of the heritability of intelligence, nothing was misrepresented as indicated by my use of ‘mostly’ as opposed to ‘all’.</p>
<p><a href=“APA PsycNet”>APA PsycNet; - this study puts the heritibility of IQ at between 0.68 and 0.78, splitting the difference that is 0.73, well within the conventional bounds of ‘mostly’.</p>
<p>I think there is a natural gravitation towards similar folk. I have been accused of being “white washed”, but as a 3rd generation British Asian, this is inevitable. As families move into the established classes, you unknowingly adopt certain traits. I grew up in a very white town, so think nothing of slight “character traits” that may not be “brown enough”.</p>
<p>That said, I try to mix with all folks.</p>
<p>People like to be with other people they have things in comon with, so you kind of feel more comfortable with people of the same race i think.</p>
<p>I like black folk. Best music, best parties. Yah mon! :D</p>
<p>I really don’t give a **** who hangs with who, unless it has to do with a hot chick I have crush on.</p>
<p>It goes way beyond just skin color. It’s mostly what you’ve grown up around. I’m a minority who’s grown up in a predominantly white town, so that’s who I gravitate towards. And it seems to be the same with all the minorities in my area. The black or hispanic or asian people who grew up in neighborhoods and attending churches and whatnot full of people of their race, all mostly gravitate to people of their race.</p>
<p>Not a big deal.</p>