Within the context of racism, your arguments can be used to support a segregation based upon some perceived “natural needs” based upon race.

Are humans not adapted to modern environment? Well, there’s some truth to that, yes. Our artificially imposed time, schedules, lifestyles – much of it is at odds with our biology.

But, the OP sets the context of racism.

Within the context of racism, your arguments can be used to support a segregation based upon some perceived “natural needs” based upon race.

In short: it can be used to justify: “Let’s send black people to climates where black skin is suitable” – that sort of thing.

In short, scientific racism.


I understand. You gave several nods of the head to rationalism, its pluses and minuses and it’s true that humanism that is devoid of _some_ sociological study is excessively idealistic – shades of Star Trek logical positivism.

But what you’ve said here:

“The solution for race is in the culture of humanism and law… Not in assumption and emotional argumentation…”

is good advice, both for those who favor segregation and those who favor something more akin to a neo-humanism.

I’m just identifying the team you’re playing on.


You may classify me as you wish. I am not disgusted by you or what direction you are moving towards.

You have no reason to feel ashamed.


You may need to blow your nose if you are smelling religion and socialism however. Perhaps a previous encounter with another person to whom you presented your case to was religious and/or socialist and enough encounters formed a snot distorting your sense of smell.


You can label me as you wish. You can label others as you wish. I do it as well.

It is not labeling that is an issue:

“Maladaptation is a combination of unsuitably modified environments paired with incompatible genetic propensities.”

This, however, is an issue.


If there is insecurity here, it is not coming from my side of the Internet but I suppose we all have issues then, don’t we?


Also, Mitchell, if you’ll notice, I did not call you a racist.

I simply noted that your argument can be used to support segregation.


If your argument cannot be used to support segregation, then I am in error and I apologize.


“Maladaptation is a combination of unsuitably modified environments paired with incompatible genetic propensities.”

I will ask questions instead of assuming:

What is an unsuitably modified environment?
What is a suitably modified environment?
What is a suitable environment?

In the context of racism, what does the genetic propensity imply?

What would be a solution to maladaption?

i) a suitably modified environment?
ii) a suitable environment
iii) fixing genetic propensity to suit the available environment

are three that come to mind off hand.


If you feel that you are “working for eternity” in some fashion that will last long beyond your death and that I am a mere ephemeral-minded ego-driven simpleton who is merely following the scripts handed down by a liberal society’s cultural indoctrination process, you’re free to do so.


and yes, you can use that for future conversations with others if you like. Made it just for you just now like emoticon I know how I appear and I know the places where that view is correct and where it is mistaken but it doesn’t matter.


Truth is contingent upon the constraints of the system in question. It has pragmatic value and I accept the pragmatic value of truth but do not ascribe it platonic qualities.

I’m also familiar with rhetoric and logic, both how it was used traditionally and how it is used today, and most familiar with the form developed and in common usage on the Internet.

It’s not my favorite sport. I know it. I can use it. I can play the game, but I see it as a game and not something of serious consequence.


Speculation is fictional at its root. I participate in it but always aware of its fictional nature, from thought experiments to movies to what if’s and wherever they’re found.

Impersonal is a style of communication but I do not believe it holds ontological value.

I speak in the subjective because it is the only thing I can give some semblance of validity to. It is me, my perspective, from this viewpoint.

I try not to speak for the Universal or for all time (this is what I mean by “working for eternity”) – but I do believe that it is valuable to determine pragmatic truths of a transient, practical nature.

Ultimate things are, to me, fictional and subject to change and found in many human systems that have pragmatic and social value.


I scoffed at:
“Maladaptation is a combination of unsuitably modified environments paired with incompatible genetic propensities. “

because from my point of view, the pragmatic value of such a statement is that it is useful as a reasonable proof (if accepted) for segregation.

However, I do not accept that statement as truth, so I scoff.

If, however, I did believe segregation was worthy in some far off corner of my mind perhaps, then perhaps I would not even notice it at all.

I noticed it. It stood out amongst everything else you wrote.

So, I pointed it out.

Perhaps rewording it could help? Perhaps justifying it could help?

But as it is, I could not accept it.


Rather than attempting to convince me that there is less value in my opinions because [x], [y], [z], it might be more fruitful to consider rewording or justifying the statement. A lot that you have said hinges upon it and if I cannot accept that, a number of your other statements did not hold either.


Even more fruitful, were I in your shoes, would be to abandon the discussion with me and talk to others who might not notice it and will be easier to side-track.

I’m entertained by it, which is why I am sitting here continuing. But I cannot see its pragmatic value for you.


You presented an argument whose logic will lead on a path towards one accepting segregation as a reasonable solution for racial problems if one accepts the notion that humans thin-slice generally and because of this, there would be a pragmatic value towards segregation at least until we reach an enlightened state of humanity in which we no longer thin-slice, if that should ever happen.

This is how I see the argument unfolding further.

Am I mistaken?’


Systems. “Within the firmament and context of reason”.

In short, I must enter your system. Within that system, I will fall into contradiction.

This is your assertion.

Are you equating reason with logic?
Or logic with reason?

When you speak of “first principle”: I will tell you mine:

Analogy and metaphor.


Logic-as-system has pragmatic value for many purposes.

It is not suitable for all purposes. It is not suitable for all discourse. But it is useful for some.


Logic has a human history.


Language has been partially described by the system of mathematics. There is a difference.


[analogy and metaphor] They are not the highest values. They are the building blocks of cognition and knowledge transfer in societies, including societies that utilize logic as their basis for reality.


Reason for me is closer to the “age of reason” usage rather than modern usage where reason = logic = reason.

In short, “What’s reasonable”, hence pragmatics.



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three + 3 =

Leave a Reply