Squirrel in loft

[EFLImpudence]

Socially constructed concepts are subject to changing social environments.
The difference of race, between humans is now considered to be scientifically and anthropologically illogical.

Words and their meanings change over time.

Only through ignorance. No one uses the wrong word intentionally

It's too late for the words you quote. Don't perpetuate evolution through ignorance.



Should we change the meaning because some people say "a damp squid" because they don't know what a squib is nor that squid are always damp?

​

 

[Doppleganger]

Also I have been accused of being a racist just because I pointed out something was not racist.

Your persistent insistence that the examples quoted cannot have been racism , does lead one to consider your motives for claiming that racism does not and cannot exist.
(Except in your mistaken, and now aborted, attempt to suggest that aborigines and caucasians are different races.)

For clarity - i.e. I am claiming racism does not exist because I pointed out something was not racist

For clarity, the motivation for your claim to pedantry, to insist that racism cannot and does not exist, is suspect.
Are there any other examples when your pedantry has raised such persistent and emotive responses from you?

So, can two people of the same race be racist to each other?

Are you still of the outdated scientific and anthropological idea that some humans are a different race form other humans?

You replied earlier that the troubles in Northern Ireland were in fact NOT racist; they were "sectarian".
Are the troubles between Israelis and Palestinians sectarian?

The Israeli/Palestinian 'troubles' are based on nationality and religion. The Irish troubles were not based on nationality or religion, but on political ambition.
Similarly, Spanish/Basque 'troubles' are sectarian. The American civil war could be described as sectarian. The Vietnamese war could be described as sectarian.
Whereas the current Myanmar 'troubles' are along a religious dividing line, as were the Sri Lanka 'troubles'.

 

[Doppleganger]

You seem rather proud of this word you have needlessly made up.

Infantilism already exists, although it would be better if you didn't contribute to evolution.

It's good in it?
I was aware of infantilism. But that pertains to behaviour.
Infanities is the product of that behaviour, or one of the products.

As profane is irreverent behaviour and profanities is the product of that behaviour, or one of the products.

 

[Doppleganger]

Only through ignorance. No one uses the wrong word intentionally

No-one is using the word 'racism' incorrectly nor through ingorance.
We, I, have adopted and accepted the UN definition.
It is only you that refuses to accept the internationally recognised definition of the word.
Yet your only action to try to correct any incorrect evolution is to try to insist that racism cannot exist.
You make no attempt, as far as we can detect, to inform or persuade the UN, and other august organisations that they are mistaken.
Why is that?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do not maintain that racism does not exist. Please read several times.

For clarity, the motivation for your claim to pedantry,

No, you called it pedantry; I call it accuracy.

to insist that racism cannot and does not exist, is suspect.

There you go again. Can you not read?

Are there any other examples when your pedantry has raised such persistent and emotive responses from you?

What? I don't respond to my own posts.

Are you still of the outdated scientific and anthropologically idea that some humans are a different race form other humans?

Now you must be saying racism does not exist.

The Israeli/Palestinian 'troubles' are based on nationality and religion. The Irish troubles were not based on nationality or religion, but on political ambition.
Similarly, Spanish/Basque 'troubles' are sectarian. The American civil war could be described as sectarian. The Vietnamese war could be described as sectarian.
Whereas the current Myanmar 'troubles' are along a religious dividing line, as were the Sri Lanka 'troubles'.

Do I take it you do not think these are racist either, then? There seems to be some contradiction in your thinking.
The American civil war was an attempt to stop racism. It has not worked yet.



I think that will do as arguing with you is just pointless.

 

[Doppleganger]

I do not maintain that racism does not exist.

Yet you obviously do, in the examples that I quoted.

No, you called it pedantry; I call it accuracy.

The UN and other august organisations call it racism, but you deny that it can be racism.
That kind of shines a light, does it not?

The American civil war was an attempt to stop racism.

Precisely! It was about political ambition! Actually, it was about stopping slavery, which is a practice based on racism, rather than racism per se.
I take it your are familiar with the term 'home goal'?

 

[Doppleganger]

Are you still of the outdated scientific and anthropological idea that some humans are a different race form other humans?

Now you must be saying racism does not exist.

According to your pedantic, outdated and incorrect definition, it cannot. You claim that racism can only exist between people of a different race. The human race is the human race!
But racism does exist, therefore, by deduction, either you are wrong, or the rest of society is wrong.

 

[EFLImpudence]

My posts do not indicate that I do not believe racism exists.
Actually, your later posts DO.

If I tell someone a spider is not an insect does that mean I am stating that spiders do not exist.


It's a wonder you haven't accused Notch of believing that immigrants should be shot.
Just for the record he doesn't.

 

[Notch7]

The human race is the human race

Experts divide the human race into anything from 3 to 60 different races.

A person lacking any expertise might think there is only 1 race.

 

[DP]

Thanks all posters who replied with pertinent information.
Will act on that but never thought post would degenerate into totally unconnected issue.
Thanks all of you for entertaining post

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yet you obviously do, in the examples that I quoted.

On the contrary, they don't.

The UN and other august organisations call it racism, but you deny that it can be racism.

They may be as daft as you - or trying to class everything as racism to make it more serious.

That kind of shines a light, does it not?

No.

Precisely! It was about political ambition! Actually, it was about stopping slavery, which is a practice based on racism, rather than racism per se.

That's streching it a bit, but then you must believe that slavery itself is not racist.
N.B. That is me asking you something; not what I believe.

Did they not all believe the Africans were an inferior race? RACISM.

I take it your are familiar with the term 'home goal'?

I don't like football but surely you mean 'own goal'.

 

[Doppleganger]

My posts do not indicate that I do not believe racism exists.
Actually, your later posts DO.

Now you're being silly.

If I tell someone a spider is not an insect does that mean I am stating that spiders do not exist.

And even sillier.

It's a wonder you haven't accused Notch of believing that immigrants should be shot.

And now beyond the description of silly.

If your arguments have descended into such silliness, it demonstrates the level of intelligence that you apply to your ideas.

 

[opps]

Peanut butter is good bait apparently.

One of my clients has a(n irrational?) dislike of squirrels. She has a squirrel trap in her garden. She uses peanut butter as the bait and once the squirrel sticks its head in to the trap a weighted arm drops down and breaks its neck. At the height of summer she gets 2 or 3 of them per month.

I had the misfortune of watching one being caught and then watched it involuntarily thrashing around. That was two weeks after watching my eldest dog being put down.

Personally, if I had a squirrel in my loft, I would try to convince it to leave and then block any access holes (easier said than done though).

With regard to anticoagulant poisons. I once worked in a house that had a rat infestation in the foundations. I had to listen to the rats screaming in pain as they (internally) bled to death. Neck breaking would have been "kinder" but possibly less effective/practical. In the end, the client paid £15K to back fill the foundations with concrete (oh, and then once she moved back in- she had a squirrel in her attic).

 

[Doppleganger]

That's streching it a bit, but then you must believe that slavery itself is not racist.
Did they not all believe the Africans were an inferior race? RACISM.

Of course slavery was based on the belief that one ethnicity or nationality was superior to others. Then they thought it was based on race, but modern scientific and anthropological thinking, we are all the same race. Hence why the word 'racism' is still used.
But the American civil war was about stopping slavery, i.e. different political thinking and ambitions, not about racism per se.

I don't like football but surely you mean 'own goal'.

Precisely, you knew exactly what I meant. You didn't argue that 'home goals' can't or don't exist, you knew exactly what it was. You pointed out that there are other expressions in common use.
Just like racism. Everyone, except for you, knows exactly what is meant. Whatever you want to call it, ethnocism, nationalism, racism, the eminent organisations all agree on the term racism to describe the whole bundle of 'isms'. They even describe the type of discrimination that are included in such behaviour as 'racism.

But you create a perpetual argument that racism does not and cannot exist, based on some outdated idea that the human race consists of different races. Or perhaps you still cling to the idea that there are substantial physiological differences between different ethnicities or nationalities.

Racism does exist, and the UN and other eminent organisations have defined it. If you refuse to accept their definition, it is you who is out of step, not anyone else.

 

[opps]

Not wanting to get dragged in to the whole "he said/she said" thing.

Can I remind each party that we should be focusing on helping the OP rather than descending into slagging matches? Potential newbies may be discouraged from asking questions if they see that posts spiral into b!tchfests.

Each of us has a skillset that may be useful to potential OPs. Shouldn't we focus on imparting our (time served) knowledge rather than lurking in the mire that is "General Discussions"?