If the ability to assimilate to one's changing environment is an indication of intelligence, or at the very least, an indication of stronger genetic makeup, then intolerance of change is the INability to assimilate....and the logical conclusion follows.

Redneck - I'm not your opponent and this isn't a game. I'm simply trying to assist you in overcoming the prejudice that is evidently impeding your logical processes.

As an avowed racist, you want to attribute all kinds of human deficiencies to the 'racial' categories into which you pigeonhole individual people. I've demonstrated that your definition of what constitutes a 'race' is so broad as to be meaningless in any objective sense. A 'race' is simply a label that you invent in order to categorise people according to your prejudices.

I'm simply saying that 'racial' classifications are pretty well useless in helping to understand human behaviour, which is why the vast majority of social scientists have dispensed with the notion. Additionally, the reification of the notion of 'race' by extremists of all persuasions has been shown to have very negative consequences for those peole who are assigned to categories that are not 'white' or 'anglo' or 'caucasian' or whatever is the label of the month for the superior 'race'.

Additionally, 'racial' profiling can have very nasty consequences for those who are mistakenly categorised as being of the wrong 'race' - like the poor Brazilian sod who was murdered by the British police because he resembled their 'Asian' (i.e. 'Middle Eastern') profile.

Lastly, I'm more of a beer drinker than a chardonnay sipper - though I'm partial to a glass or 3 of a nice Shiraz on a cool night :)

Mahatna Duck,

Your argument reminds me of the British 'Council for Racial Equity' - Britain has always been a multicultural, multiracial society?
to jusitfy mass immigration from every corner of the world. Britain, historically only had large amounts of immigrants from neighbouring countries, not Pakistan, Africa, China or wherever ever else the multiculti left dip their fingers.

Australia has always had immigration from one source, which has avoided serious racial tensions thus far. People with blue eyes and brown eyes from they same cultural background (from Britain, Europe whatever) have better compatibilty than people with brown eyes from Pakistan or Sudan.

Duck, you are logically challenged.

And notice, too, Redneck, that Pericles, who initiated a discussion with myself, has since totally backed away, failing to reply to my questions.

Hey Pericles, speaking about dogs and how to recognize them, I don't know if you caught my other post where I mentioned this boxer I saw in the Singapore Botanical Gardens a day or 2 ago... the European guy walking it had to stop while it did a business... then it immediately rolled in it while he was looking elsewhere.. and it just stayed there..shoulder in the poo.... he freaked, wiped it rear and then, with a very upset look, wiped its soiled shoulder....

We all tend to be a bit like that boxer at times... some wallow in 'I'm smarter than all yous' and others in "I couldnt give a damn what you think" and then of course there are we "holier than thou's" :) (or so some might venture to describe us)..

I don't know why its so hard to grasp (by some) the concept of cultural/racial critical mass, and how beneficial such a thing is for stability. I doubt you would disagree with that, but the duck wants to turn it into some ethereal 'but what IS race anyway' when we all pretty much know what it is.

We also know how social/cultural groups tend to try to promote their own interests at the expense of others. Those of us of the prevailing culture should avoid the deliberate marginalization of others purely for gain.

While your premise infers that there is only one race, the human race. I think that most people can grasp that you have a point, but most people would also acknowledge that there are three principle races (Asian, Caucasian and Negroid) and also that there are many sub groups of those principle races in which different people are undeniably (and at the very least) physically distinguishable from others.

My premise is that there may be very real differences in temperament, intelligence and physical ability between differing racial groups, be they principle groups or sub groups. You claim the exact opposite. Yet your approach is that unless I can prove that you are wrong, then you must be right. Could I remind you that both of us has a premise, and the onus is upon both of us to give reasons why we think our premise is right.

But I at least am prepared to give logical reasons for why I think the way I do. You, and people who think like you, demand that the principle of absolute equality between races must be taken for granted and anyone who proposes differently is a cretinous, uneducated, “extremist”, “Hoi Polloi” redneck. I put it to you that such an argument is intellectually dishonest and a position carefully crafted to prevent intellectual discussion.

If there are differences between races and some of those differences are uncomplimentary to one race or the other, then it is just too bad. Your premise could be equated with the concept of whether one should continue to claim that the Earth is the centre of the universe. It may be true that the Earth is not the centre, but perhaps people should not be told because it might have a serious detrimental effect upon religious belief.