Incredible racism at World Wildlife Federation

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by spect8or, Mar 23, 2007.

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6452555.stm


    Sheesh, what a bigot!


    Oh, so skin-deep differences are important are they? Those differences should be protected should they?

    Leopards aren't simply interchangeable with one another, eh? Why not? Humans are. Especially those white ones.
     

  2. To be perfectly honest, id sooner not be killed and skun just for such a determination.

    (standard museum/genetic/biology history, before anyone jumps down my throat on the matter-in the old days, they shot and skun &stuffed everything in sight , because dragging a smelly carcass around the planet just isnt good)

    And your analogy is badly flawed, considering the clouded leopard has existed on its lonesome for a very long time, since it was actually a different kind of phenotype leopard.

    Its true, you would never have this discussion, if those white people hadnt set about conquering the globe, rather than, say, living exclusively in great britain, or greenland or something throughout their natural history.


    Indeed, the clouded leopard came from somewhere.......
     
  3. The length of time is what makes my analogy "badly flawed"? Why? Either the clouded leopard (or even just Asian leopards in general) is different to the African leopard or it isn't. If it is, why should it matter how long it's been separate?

    So flooding white countries with racial aliens with whom everything in history suggests will be a perpetually painful and unrewarding experience is just payback is it? At least you're honest about it.


    My point with this post is that even hardcore lefties (like these wildlife people) can understand the importance of biological differences when they are not blinded by ideology.
     




  4. Yeah, i can see that-i dont think the irony of caucasian global imperialism would be lost on said whitey's wondering how their own countries might be inundated with other ethnotypes, i guess.

    Point being, humans havent been part of nature for a long time, and anywhere in the animal kingdom you will find this very forcefull subjugation, and opportunity cost of labour, effecting territories, minor differences among the same species causing havoc, sure.

    Time isnt the big thing, clearly, but the clouded leopard sure LOOKS different, doesnt it?

    I was a member of WWF for a while. Naive, impressionable kid, taken in by very clever marketing............

    Bastards only wanted MONEY, how the fuck is a kid, going to sponsor, or help a freaking scientific expidtion to F#@!1!* borneo, you know?

    Sure, i looked into the volunteer idea.

    What, pay my own expenses, to be a shitkicker, for a program with virtually zero chance of success, by any rational assessment???

    I might have well have joined the f*&#%@@!! army.



    I shit you not, this mob is worse than readers digest, they JUST WOULDNT STOP sending shit, i dont know HOW they knew where i was, but damn.


    Well, rant over.
     

  5. I'm not sure I've understood you properly, but you seem to be agreeing with me.

    If you do agree that multiracialism (ie racial diversity within one society/country) is just one big ordeal, isn't it sensible to ask why we pursue it with such vigor? What benefit arises out of it that mitigates the unquestionable tensions it causes? Doesn't the refusal to critically appraise the results of this "experiment" constitute one of the most egregious derelictions of duty in our time?
     
  6. To an extent, sure-i look at things as a humanist, and a naturalist.
    My assesment is that its a natural phenomenon, not something that by and large is being persued, as such.

    Theres no benifit, no advantage, its just a natural phenomena when a species (in this instance, race if you like) competes aggresively for resources.


    The odd one out, in any natural history, is people. From papuan natives nearly killing of their sacred emblems, ( various species of bird of paradies) to the maori wiping out the moa, their is little particularly good about humanity, i cant think of any logical reason a seperation of the human species should be either worthwhile overall, or particularly commendable.

    But then, my philosophy is somewhat malthusian.

    The human race, is doing everything it possibly can to exterminate itself.

    Why should we take every other species along with us? Even a clouded leopard?

    Are we really that damn marvellous?
     
  7. It is both natural and a policy.

    It is natural that people seek to better the material condition of their lives, and natural that they will cross borders and reside in territories inhabited by racial and cultural aliens to do it.

    It is policy that allows such people to. It is policy, based on flawed assumptions about human nature, that cons us into believing that welcoming 3rd world hordes into our homes is beneficial to us. It is policy that rolls out the welcome mat.

    Simply because a phenomenon is "natural" does not make that phenomenon desirable. What could be more "natural" than killing a man and taking his resources -- his wife, his horse, his gold, for example? The act being "natural" does not mean we permit it or encourage it.

    The only reason to bow to natural phenomena is when there is nothing we can do about them. We might not look favorably on our mortality, but since there is nothing we can do avoid it, we come to accept it. However, immigration is hardly such an unstoppable force of nature.



    The first part of your paragraph has nothing to do with the second. Whether humanity, in toto, is good, bad, ugly or purple has no bearing on the question of whether separation or integration is the better idea.

    Since I'm not interested in discussing the value of humankind from the point of view of water fowl, I'll just address the second point.

    You admit that different groups of human beings when thrust into the same living space will compete, as groups, for scarce resources but then go on to claim that you can see no reason why separation of such groups might be worthwhile? How about simply because it avoids the inevitable problems that arise from the cohabitation of differing human "species" (your word)?

    I don't see that at all. If we were truly doing everything possible we would have all committed suicide by now, since there are countless readily employable methods for doing so.


    I gather from your tone a pervasive sort of hopelessness. Things are going so badly, you seem to be saying, that who cares about the fate of humanity? What does it matter whether Europeans are displaced from their native lands? Who has time for such considerations when the fate of marine life is at stake?

    All I can think to say in response to that line of reasoning is that you'd better start caring about the fate of Europeans then, because it's Europeans, by and large, who are concerned about saving whales; the Japanese are more interested in eating them.
     
  8. man

    man

    the reason why we find species in nature to be protected
    is that they might be extinguished otherwise. which is
    not the case for human races. if this is what this thread
    is supposedly talking about. if somehow it is indicated
    here that human races should be seperated, animal
    protection schemes are an utterly poor subject for
    comparison.

    but maybe there is something more sophisticated behind
    this ...
     
  9. Clearly it is not the case for human races. But why not?

    Or, why the double standard? If protecting the clouded leopard is a moral imperative, why not the protection of the white human?

    Or, if the disappearance of the white human is considered a boon to "diversity", why fret the loss of the clouded leopard?




    There is. Why don't you try answering the questions the thread raises. Reading the thread, you can hardly have missed them. But I'll repeat the main question for you here: given the inevitable frictions and tensions multiracialism causes, why are western countries encouraged to keep increasing the level of it? What benefit emerges from it?
     
  10. man

    man


    IMHO the only people who feel frictions and tensions
    if a white man marries a black girl are those who are
    against it beforehand ... be there any tension and
    friction or be there none.
    your argument on the leopards is far fetched and as
    flawed as can be.
    racism is in my eyes less immoral but just stupid.
    oh my god. people who think like that do actually
    exist.

    simple question: why don't you speak it out clearly?
    "whites should engage with whites. period." i would
    think that you do not mind about the blacks merging
    with the yellow, do you? ah, probably you will, to make
    it look better.
     
    #10     Mar 24, 2007