bluecode wrote: » Everyone is a little bit racist, xenophobic or whatever. It's actually human nature.
HHobo wrote: » Science says YES!
Oranage2 wrote: » What's the big deal about being racist anyway its hardly a crime!
Gauss wrote: » I believe in live and let live. If someone wants to hate one particular section of society that's their own business so long as they don't harm anyone.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Human nature to be racist/xenophobic? It does? Any ol' peer reviewed studies on this lads because I was under the impression that racism and xenophobia are learned (and indeed unlearned). Actually, it's well accepted that racism and xenophobia can be 'unlearned' which creates an axiom, of sorts, that they had to be learned in the first place and, thus, are not natural states.
Gauss wrote: » The white man fears the black man's pendulous genitalia. This is where racism stems from.
HHobo wrote: » Racism is coonsidered a type of this thinking.
Micky Dolenz wrote: » I'd be more prejudiced then racist. I'd like to think I treat people with equal disdain.
HHobo wrote: » So what if it is learned?
Ingroup - outgroup thinking is natural - Racism is coonsidered a type of this thinking.
Why do you assume that learning over coming instinct must indicate the initial impulse cannot be instinctual?
There have been studies done. I honestly couldn't be bothered finding them. Give it a solid googling and you'll find them.
HHobo wrote: » There have been studies done. I honestly couldn't be bothered finding them. Give it a solid googling and you'll find them.
Chuck Stone wrote: » You said racism and xenophobia is natural. If it's leaned then it can be unlearned or, better still, not be taught in the first place.
Chuck Stone wrote: » It's a field for sociological psychology
Chuck Stone wrote: » Instinctual reactions are not formed by prior experiences (learned). Babies suckling is instinctual as is their ability to swim; shivering from cold or fear too for example.
Chuck Stone wrote: » You make the claim you back it up. You expect me to find evidence for your, as yet, spurious claims? Lol.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/heart-drug-makes-people-less-racist-study_n_1328122.htmlhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00213-012-2657-5
HHobo wrote: » I don't see what natual has to do with anything. Is it unnatual? Like all learned things must be? It is innate. So what? Right and we react we misplaced instinctual responses in all kinds of situations. Fear of the unfamiliar is instinctual... You seem to be confusing a thread on boards.ie with some form of formal debate. Ironically, you want me to do the searching for you. I healped you out by informing you such studies exist. I also made it clear I am not interested enough to go and find it. You want me to go and do the leg work so you can satisfy your curiosity.... ummm no thanks. I don't give a monkey's if you believe me or not.
pabloh999 wrote: » Cos you'd get yer head kicked in boss..
Chuck Stone wrote: » Actually, it's well accepted that racism and xenophobia can be 'unlearned' which creates an axiom, of sorts, that they had to be learned in the first place and, thus, are not natural states.
mango salsa wrote: » So basically anything you say in this thread is meaningless twaddle.
HHobo wrote: » Right. Yeah that seems a fair summation. :rolleyes:
mango salsa wrote: » Well if you're going to make a statement that you can't back up then how can we be expected to treat your opinion as informed or meaningful?
mango salsa wrote: » informed or meaningful?
HHobo wrote: » I don't see what natual has to do with anything.
It is innate.
Fear of the unfamiliar is instinctual...
You seem to be confusing a thread on boards.ie with some form of formal debate.
Ironically, you want me to do the searching for you. I healped you out by informing you such studies exist. I also made it clear I am not interested enough to go and find it. You want me to go and do the leg work so you can satisfy your curiosity.... ummm no thanks. I don't give a monkey's if you believe me or not.
Deleted User wrote: » Ya think?
HHobo wrote: » I realise as a moderator here you might have a skewed impression of the importance of a boards.ie discussion. I am under absolutely no obligation to "back up" anything. As I appear to be the only person aware that this topic has been the subject of a study I would seem to be more informed than you. Bear in mind that I don't mind if you don't believe me. The OP now has a study to look up to become more informed his/her self on the issue. I have no interest in googling for you. If you are interested, look it up. If not, don't. I don't mind either way. Treat anything I say in any way you please. It is interesting to me though that the one person who mentions an actually study but can't be bothered to look it up is spouting meaningless twaddle but everyone else who presents nothing but wild speculation and opinion is under no obligation to prove anything to be saying something: If this were a serious debate, certainly it would be expected of me to provide you with citations. It isn't. I couldn't be bothered. The most ironic thing about all this is that I probably could have in the time it took to type this reply.
curlzy wrote: » Have to agree with this, this is After Hours. Who said we have to put forth scientic evidence for our opinions? This isn't a serious forum.