Reply With Quote
How much less could you care?
I could care less.
How much less could you care?
An interesting study:
Prejudice Is Hard-Wired Into The Human Brain, Says ASU Study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0525105357.htm
Contrary to what most people believe, the tendency to be prejudiced is a form of common sense, hard-wired into the human brain through evolution as an adaptive response to protect our prehistoric ancestors from danger.
So suggests a new study published by Arizona State University researchers in the May issue of the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology," which contends that, because human survival was based on group living, "outsiders" were viewed as -- and often were -- very real threats.
"By nature, people are group-living animals -- a strategy that enhances individual survival and leads to what we might call a 'tribal psychology'," says Steven Neuberg, ASU professor of social psychology, who authored the study with doctoral student Catherine Cottrell. "It was adaptive for our ancestors to be attuned to those outside the group who posed threats such as to physical security, health or economic resources, and to respond to these different kinds of threats in ways tailored to have a good chance of reducing them."
Unfortunately, says Neuberg, because evolved psychological tendencies are imperfectly attuned to the existence of dangers, people may react negatively to groups and their members even when they actually pose no realistic threat.
Neuberg and Cottrell had 235 European American students at ASU think about nine different groups: activist feminists, African Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, fundamentalist Christians, gay men, Mexican Americans, Native Americans and nonfundamentalist Christians. The researchers then had the participants rate these groups on the threats they pose to American society (e.g., to physical safety, values, health, etc.) and report the emotions they felt toward these groups (e.g., fear, anger, disgust, pity, etc.).
Consistent with the researchers' hypotheses, findings revealed that distinct prejudices exist toward different groups of people. Some groups elicited prejudices characterized largely by fear, others by disgust, others by anger, and so on. Moreover, the different "flavors" of prejudice were associated with different patterns of perceived threat.
Follow-up work further shows that these different prejudices motivate inclinations toward different kinds of discrimination, in ways apparently aimed at reducing the perceived threat.
"Groups seen as posing threats to physical safety elicit fear and self-protective actions, groups seen as choosing to take more than they give elicit anger and inclinations toward aggression, and groups seen as posing health threats elicit disgust and the desire to avoid close physical contact," says Cottrell.
"One important practical implication of this research is that we may need to create different interventions to reduce inappropriate prejudices against different groups," says Neuberg.
For example, if one is trying to decrease prejudices among new college students during freshman orientation, different strategies might be used for bringing different groups together.
"For instance, given that whites stereotypically perceive blacks as threats to physical safety, it would be inadvisable to suggest a game of outdoor night-time basketball, given that darkness heightens people's fear. Sharing a plate of nachos might be a better choice," Cottrell says. "But if the aim is to reduce prejudice against gay men -- viewed to pose a health treat because of association with AIDS, and thereby eliciting physical disgust --sharing finger food might not be a good idea."
Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take place and that responses can't be dampened.
"People sometimes assume that because we say prejudice has evolved roots we are saying that specific prejudices can't be changed. That's simply not the case," Neuberg says. "What we think and feel and how we behave is typically the result of complex interactions between biological tendencies and learning experiences. Evolution may have prepared our minds to be prejudiced, but our environment influences the specific targets of those prejudices and how we act on them."
Well, it can't take place in some people.Neuberg and Cottrell are both adamant to point out that just because prejudices are a fundamental and natural part of what makes us human, that doesn't mean that learning can't take place
You can't respect other people's views that don't coincide with your own, that's the perception you're putting out there with this back and forth. You look for, expect and maybe even hope for, the worst in your fellow countrymen. That's been made quite clear.
What hasn't been made clear is why you keep asking the same circuitous questions that have no answer or relevance to anything I've said. I told you quite clearly why some struggle with the idea, you couldn't care less. That, too, has been made quite clear.
You can ask questions for a lot of things: to find answers, to annoy ... to distract from the actual topic at hand, you're clearly not looking for answers. They've been presented. Stop being Indiana Jones and look right in front of you. There's no trap door, no boobie traps, no "fortune cookies."It was a simple yes or no question that you failed to answer again.
You wanted to know why it is some might object and how it wasn't racist (the main contention I've had), I told you.
You don't want an answer because it's already been given to you.
What morals? Are their specific ones that fit a particular category? Would you like to give me a multiple choice or is their some code I should know about?
At some point I'm gonna have to let this go, but I gotta admit ... your ignorance is becoming quite amusing.
I told you. You want a single word to define it and I told you the one word that comes closest: ignorance; but it's only the closest and doesn't imply hatred or that it's coming from some sinister place.The original question again is:
If it isn't racism, Islamophobia, or bad tastism then what is it that makes these people feel this way?
Told you, you don't care. That, or your just not reading the responses (which I actually hope is your excuse).If it's a moral dilemma which you have stated it is, then what specifically is the dilemma?
Right. Your asking honest questions from a sincere place. Right . . .I'm not making any arguments. I'm asking questions. Thus the question marks at the end of my sentences.
Your worse than a kid who asks "Why?" At least they have an actual curiosity and don't know any better -- it's not like their lives or vocabulary lead them to have much else to say.
Yeah, it is. You've been given the answer, why it is that having a mosque built on Ground Zero would bring pause and even opposition, but it's not enough. In fact, I'm hoping your just trying to troll.None of that is an answer to my questions. Why is it so hard for you to answer questions regarding your posts?
Common sense, Blake. Stands to reason if they do that on the day the Towers were reduced to rubble and all the rhetoric we've all seen and heard from Al-Qaeda's leaders and others, that they might just crack a smile or two at the thought. Almost 10 years later and they're still reaping the rewards. They still have an impact on a good chunk of Americans and their way of life. Hard to believe that the brethren of those that took the lives of all those innocent people on 9-11 would find satisfaction in that.But regarding this post, how do you know these celebrations and flag burning come in the form of this mosque?
Crazy, I know, but this common sense stuff is quite useful.
You want addresses, wiseguy?But back to the original questions again:
Where exactly are these extremists?
If they are mocking from afar, why is it so unsettling for people?
If someone walked into your house, killed your family and themselves and then the group that sent the people into your home, laughed from a far or took satisfaction in knowing they'd have a place to worship the faith that led them to perpetrate the acts -- next door to the home your family was slain -- that wouldn't bother you? Let's not even say your family, say the family down the street from you, maybe you don't know a thing about them. Same thing occurs, that doesn't stick in your craw and leave you questioning whether legality makes something right or wrong?
Stop being a putz.
I haven't and I wouldn't. It's not a good look, as you've clearly illustrated.Don't throw out and hope it sticks. Be specific.
I'm gonna start calling you Nancy:
Why!?!
Just addressed that once again, not that it'll matter.
I'm beginning to think you're one of those people that has an overwhelming amount of shame because of bigoted beliefs or past actions and tries to atone by carrying the tolerance flag for the poor outsiders, only your tolerance only extends to those you feel you have wronged in some way or fashion.I would agree that it won't unless you live in ignorance, fear and hate which belong to the intolerant and bigoted.
I think we might be getting somewhere here.
Closet racist?
I'm glad you find your redundant and terrible questioning amusing.Yes, I am looking for an answer. If it's not one of those things listed, then what is it?
Gottdam.
As long as you've convinced yourself you've made a point, I guess that's all that really matters. Ignorance -- I'm told -- can be bliss.You are like the horse that can't google a thesaurus. I think it made the point just fine.
I've made that distinction on more than one occasion, guy. You'd know that if you read and comprehended what was posted before you responded.So are they or aren't they prejudiced?
I never brought up the word....you did.
Prejudice is not without nuance, a fact that alludes you -- you only see black and white (could that be because you're a closet racist?).
Same place, and I've yet to call you a name. Well, other than a horse that can't comprehend the words he uses. But in all honesty, no one expects a horse to know how to do that.Now you are all over the place and having to resort to name calling.
Thanks, Nancy (oh, and Nancy. I've now called you a horse and Nancy)!Sounds about right, horse.
How 'bout the scenario I laid out in this post. Your family or a neighbor's family is murdered at their home by a suicide bomber. 9 years later a mosque is built next door, it's within their rights and all legal prerequisites have been met. The people that sent the suicide bomber to your house are still at large and have made no secret of their happiness of your family's or neighbors slaughter. They still claim the same faith as their reasoning, Islam, and find it hysterical, pleasing or just a good ol' feather in the cap that they'll be able to attend a service next door to the "Zionist's" family they had slaughtered.Regarding what?
Be specific in your question so I can give you a specific answer.
Would you feel conflicted at all? Maybe even reluctant to have such a venue so close to where the murder took place?
For the record, I said "do you" because you weren't me.Specifically? Because you specifically said it was a moral dilemma for some, specifically.
What is the moral dilemma?
In retrospect. ... "Do you," you're no ChumpDumper.
So these strawman people, whoever they are, are still at large, but they'll be able to attend a service next door to me?
No, I would have no problem with a mosque being built within zoning codes because I believe there are no foul motives involved in building a mosque with law abiding citizens attending it.
The person in this scenario you just described that has a problem with the mosque is the definition of an Islamophobe. What the do you think the issue is in real life?
And all that typing, and still no answers. Why are you going to all this trouble to not answer the simple questions?
Last edited by Blake; 08-29-2010 at 08:41 PM.
So you would object to them boarding the plane to begin with because of their race?
No, but you and I would both watch them like a hawk. If you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.
If you and the other phobes are watching like a hawk, then I'll relax and enjoy my flight.
Yeah, right. You probably wound't even notice.
Does security suck at the airports you use?
Probably. They're too busy frisking old women and single moms. Too bad they won't profile high risk individuals.
Listen, Nancy.So these strawman people, whoever they are, are still at large, but they'll be able to attend a service next door to me?
No, I would have no problem with a mosque being built within zoning codes because I believe there are no foul motives involved in building a mosque with law abiding citizens attending it.
The person in this scenario you just described that has a problem with the mosque is the definition of an Islamophobe. What the do you think the issue is in real life?
And all that typing, and still no answers. Why are you going to all this trouble to not answer the simple questions?
There comes a time where you just have to leave well-enough alone and move on. A time where you have to ask yourself who the bigger fool is: the one spouting fool's words; or the person whom allows those fool's words to not fall on deaf ears. I've decided to wash my hands of you're disingenuous posts, intolerance and bigotry -- after all, if those whom oppose your view are only filled with hate (racists), fear (Islamaphobes) or are deemed "bad-tasters" (i.e. unintelligent morons), that's exactly what you've conveyed.
Ironic, don't you think, Nancy?
What is your proof they won't?
Are you admitting you don't know when to leave well enough alone and move on?
and Nancy? Why are you getting so butthurt that you have to try to change my name? Should I change your name too? You're acting like a pussy so I'll call you Vaginia.
It's not ironic at all, Vaginia.A time where you have to ask yourself who the bigger fool is: the one spouting fool's words; or the person whom allows those fool's words to not fall on deaf ears. I've decided to wash my hands of you're disingenuous posts, intolerance and bigotry -- after all, if those whom oppose your view are only filled with hate (racists), fear (Islamaphobes) or are deemed "bad-tasters" (i.e. unintelligent morons), that's exactly what you've conveyed.
Ironic, don't you think, Nancy?
The scenario you posted amounted to nothing more than Islamophobia whether you realized it or not.
These are the reasons we have come up with so far: hate (racists), fear (Islamophobes) or are "bad-tasters".
What are other reasons people have for not wanting a mosque 2 blocks away from Ground Zero, Vaginia?
You have stated that some that oppose it have a moral dilemma. What is that moral dilemma?
Very simple question to answer if there really is a moral dilemma, Vaginia. It shouldn't take a 3 page response filled with poor assumptions and strawman arguments that amount to nothing.
lol Nancy
lol "strawman"
lol Vaginia
lol you don't know what a "strawman" is
lol you don't know how to stay on topic or move on.
What is another reason people have for opposing the mosque?
What is the moral dilemma these people might face?
lol racist
lol bigot
lol moron
lol "strawman"
LOL NANCY
C'mon, Black -- you're more articulate than this. Blake raises what seems like a perfectly valid criticizm that you've refused to answer for pages, namely: if you believe in what's "right," how can you excuse the racist/islamophobic/aesthetic position held by some. It seems like, having taken a decisive position about right and wrong, you then admit to universal moral relativism that holds that what you believe is right may not be right for all. Sounds reasonable enough at first blush.
But writ simply, would you also say that while you believe racism is wrong, you can also understand that there are those who have their perfectly legitimate reasons for thinking blacks are a subordinate species? If you can explain your answer to this question, I -- and maybe Blake, too -- might be able to understand where you're coming from and we can dispense with the Nancys and Vaginas and act like ing grownups maybe.
If you've read what I've written, there's no way you could come to that conclusion unless your just in the tank for your argument.
Some people take offense for reasons that aren't based in fear, hate or lack of intelligence.
I never once said that racism, Islamaphobia, stupidity or ignorance doesn't exist in some of the protest. I simply find it disingenuous to paint with a broad brush and expect, look or hope for the worst in all that oppose your particular view.
What are morals and how do you define them for others?
This isn't rocket science. There is no nuance with racist or racism. Simply calling someone that -- whom you know nothing about -- is ridiculous. Plain and simple.
We're better than that, at least we should be.
I don't have a dog in the fight, I'm just saying that I've read your argument these many pages and you haven't been able to reconcile the statement that you believe in a "right" with the moral relativism you follow it with.
Without trying to pick a fight, allowing both those sentiments to coexists seems to me to be at least as under-reasoned and/or disingenuous as you're painting my absurd scenario. I might as well add that you didn't explain how your argument was substantively different than said scenario -- which was intentionally exaggerated to underscore what I'm perceiving as the flaw in your position.
I apologize if you're making some meta-point about morality that's going over my head, but just based on what I'm reading, it seems to me you're contradicting yourself.
To this in particular, I think you're making a needless assumption about how people who are resistant to the mosque are characterized (or should not be characterized). Whether opponents to the rec center are painted in a flattering light or not isn't really as important as whether or not they are right. And "right" isn't a diffuse term given that we work from a do ent of law that is explicit.
Based on this do ent, there is no legitimate reason to interfere with the construction of the community center, and as regards having misgivings, troubling emotions, or whatever... there's just no place for them.
I dislike the color yellow, but that doesn't give me legitimate grounds to demand that yellow be removed from all restaurants I frequent. And taking that notion to a larger plane of regard, it doesn't make it reasonable or legitimate to gather an army of people who hate yellow to pe ion for striking yellow from the color wheel. Might does not make stupidity viable, nor do aesthetics have any place in legislation.
Now, if a reasonable argument against the construction of the community center arises, that may force us to a different response to the issue -- but given no such argument has been articulated thus far, it should follow that there is no need to accept the legitimacy of sentiments which contradict the law of the land.
I just moved in next door to you and your family with my pit bull. You don't know more than the average person about pit bulls but you have seen and heard many stories of their brutality. You don't like it and you are concerned for the welfare of your kids as they are separated from my dog by an old wood fence. Do you view it as its just a dog? Do you keep a closer eye on your kids and if so does that mean you hate dogs or are a cynophobe (fear of dogs)?
The only problem I've had is with those that dismiss other's viewpoints as racist, basically. I'm just tired of people locking into an opinion or stance and dismissing those that disagree or marginalizing them at every opportunity.
I've been around long enough and around a diverse enough group of people to know well-intentioned people don't always agree with me. What I believe is "right" might not always be "right" in their view. What one believes as "right" end the end is only a belief -- legality and correct doesn't necessarily coincide with what is "right" or "wrong."
The acts of 9-11 were perpetrated by terrorists. But they weren't lone gunmen. They had an affiliation and cause -- they have friends and they're still out there. To suggest that notion is a "strawman" is a slap-in-the-face to common sense.
Is it really that hard to believe some good-hearted Americans would find this community center to be objectional? Would they ALL have to be racists or people that should be marginalized because they oppose the community center?
Innocent people were slaughtered. Americans -- people of all faiths and color.
It doesn't seem all that strange why it would stick in the craw of some, make them question what was "right and "wrong" (morality), even if not legality.
It is my belief and opinion that the mosque should be built. I'm jokingly Omnipotent, not legitimately all-knowing.
It's a clever analogy, but ultimately you're equating a breed of dog that (it is known) has been developed to fight with a religion that contains a whole spectrum of beliefs, from total pacifism to total belligerence. Just saying somebody is Muslim in and of itself isn't grounds for su ion. More criteria need to be met before you can have a justifiable complaint or motive to ostracize your neighbor, and fortunately you're en led to the same protections from harassment, alienation, etc.
The analogy doesn't suggest you ostracize me for having a pit bull. It asks the question if your actions as a parent are any different than before I moved in and if so does that classify you as a dog hater?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
