Things you've always wondered about but couldn't be bothered to find out

[Taffin]

23 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Those that see racism where there is none are probably on a par to be fair.

 

I don't think it's racist in and of itself per se; it is however grossly offensive to those that it's etymology is most commonly associated with. It's frankly ludicrous to draw any parallel between the plight of plantation slaves with modern day Scots. There's just no place for it. Are there parallels from the 1700s, possibly, but to still be clinging onto that is akin to the Orange March thread...people need to move on rather than cling to a dark past that has no place in this day and age.

 

Lots of Scots like the union, it's served them well. It's not some kind of enforced Stockholm syndrome where the alternative is/was horrifying. Scotland and it's people need to get the chip off their shoulder and actually do something rather than sniping from the sidelines. Were slaves given a democratic vote to end their plight and shat it? No. If there's any Scottish demographic who's blinded by their 'Master' it's those who still think Sturgeon is remotely interested in delivering independence. She's had an open goal at it, aim your ire there and push for a leader who can deliver on their single purpose. 

 

 

 

Edit: is there more than a bit of 2014 heartbreak in the above. Absolutely.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Taffin

[il Duce McTarkin]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Those that see racism where there is none are probably on a par to be fair.

 

Maybe you should set up a poll and guage popular opinion.

 

 

[Unknown user]

23 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I don't think it's racist in and of itself per se

 

Correct, and that's the allegation being made

[Unknown user]

20 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Too busy to get into semantics with you today, 十米斯， but in these hyper enlightened times, using a term such as that makes you look as intolerant and ignorant as those you frequently seek to disparage; all in the name of nationalism, too. Pathetic and telling in equal measures.

 

It isn't racist though. Surely it's fairly pathetic and telling if you believe what you say here, then go about calling people field jocks? 🤷‍♂️

[Taffin]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Correct, and that's the allegation being made

 

I only think that though due to the origin of the term. The way I presume it's being used (with connotations to slavery in America) probably is racist. Directing racist terminology at a different group, doesn't make it less racist imo. 

Edited June 13, 2022 by Taffin

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I only think that though due to the origin of the term. The way I presume it's being used (with connotations to slavery in America) probably is racist. Directing racist terminology at a different group, doesn't make it less racist imo. 

 

It isn't racist.

What racial stereotypes are at play when a Scot calls another Scot a name based on his politics?

[dougal]

On 12/06/2022 at 08:42, Angel eyes said:

to boldly go where no man has gone before.…..Star Trek quote yet when they get there, someone already is?

 

Not a big star trek fan but I'm assuming the word man refers to humans and so the people from other worlds don't count. Or it could just be that the particular film or TV episode doesn't refer to going to a place no man has gone before.

[maroondevo52]

Why do news readers speak as if they are talking to a bunch of morons.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

It isn't racist.

What racial stereotypes are at play when a Scot calls another Scot a name based on his politics?

 

Would it be racist for me to call another white person a racial slur, regardless of whether they were that race or not? What about homophobic language, is that only homophobic if the recipient is homosexual? Can a person not be racist towards their own race? 

 

Yes, it's an development of a phrase, that if it had jumped from origin to now I'd feel less uncomfortable with. You cannot strip out it's more recent usage though which was inherently racist, as such the phrase itself is racist imo. 

 

I don't have particular umbrage with it, it's mildly amusing in a dark way. It sails very close to the wind though and isn't something I'd prefer to have associated with my view of the independence movement...but I appreciate everyone has a different 'want' from independence.

[il Duce McTarkin]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I only think that though due to the origin of the term. The way I presume it's being used (with connotations to slavery in America) probably is racist. Directing racist terminology at a different group, doesn't make it less racist imo. 

 

Correct.

 

1 minute ago, maroondevo52 said:

Why do news readers speak as if they are talking to a bunch of morons.

 

Because they are.

[maroondevo52]

1 minute ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

 

 

Because they are.

 

I was waiting on that one

[il Duce McTarkin]

1 minute ago, maroondevo52 said:

 

I was waiting on that one

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Would it be racist for me to call another white person a racial slur, regardless of whether they were that race or not? What about homophobic language, is that only homophobic if the recipient is homosexual? Can a person not be racist towards their own race? 

 

Yes, it's an development of a phrase, that if it had jumped from origin to now I'd feel less uncomfortable with. You cannot strip out it's more recent usage though which was inherently racist, as such the phrase itself is racist imo. 

 

I don't have particular umbrage with it, it's mildly amusing in a dark way. It sails very close to the wind though and isn't something I'd prefer to have associated with my view of the independence movement...but I appreciate everyone has a different 'want' from independence.

Yes internalised homophobia or internalised racism are a thing . 

[Lone Striker]

7 hours ago, Taffin said:

. If there's any Scottish demographic who's blinded by their 'Master' it's those who still think Sturgeon is remotely interested in delivering independence. She's had an open goal at it, aim your ire there and push for a leader who can deliver on their single purpose. 

 

 

 

I agree with most of that - all except the bit pasted above.  This is probably the wrong thread to debate it though. 😉

[Taffin]

6 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

I agree with most of that - all except the bit pasted above.  This is probably the wrong thread to debate it though. 😉

 

It's a fair challenge. I'm just frustrated by it currently...but you're right it's not the thread for it and I think Smithee and I both actually want the same out come by and large anyway 👍

Edited June 13, 2022 by Taffin

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, jonesy said:

I don’t believe anything I say here, Smithee. As one of the good guys, you should recognise that.

Noted, to be quoted!

[graygo]

8 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

I don't think it's racist in and of itself per se; it is however grossly offensive to those that it's etymology is most commonly associated with. It's frankly ludicrous to draw any parallel between the plight of plantation slaves with modern day Scots. There's just no place for it. Are there parallels from the 1700s, possibly, but to still be clinging onto that is akin to the Orange March thread...people need to move on rather than cling to a dark past that has no place in this day and age.

 

Lots of Scots like the union, it's served them well. It's not some kind of enforced Stockholm syndrome where the alternative is/was horrifying. Scotland and it's people need to get the chip off their shoulder and actually do something rather than sniping from the sidelines. Were slaves given a democratic vote to end their plight and shat it? No. If there's any Scottish demographic who's blinded by their 'Master' it's those who still think Sturgeon is remotely interested in delivering independence. She's had an open goal at it, aim your ire there and push for a leader who can deliver on their single purpose. 

 

 

 

Edit: is there more than a bit of 2014 heartbreak in the above. Absolutely.

 

Will you accuse her of reckless obsession tomorrow?

 

 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20206002.snp-greens-accused-reckless-obsession-indy-prospectus-launches-tomorrow/

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Will you accuse her of reckless obsession tomorrow?

 

 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20206002.snp-greens-accused-reckless-obsession-indy-prospectus-launches-tomorrow/

 

Probably not, unless there's something truly bizarre and unexpected in the prospectus.

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Probably not, unless there's something truly bizarre and unexpected in the prospectus.

 

Is the fact that it's being produced at all not unexpected to you?  "not remotely interested in delivering independence"

[JudyJudyJudy]

14 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Probably not, unless there's something truly bizarre and unexpected in the prospectus.

Hopefully it gets the ball rolling and the matter is laid to rest for a generation or eternity.  However ,.....

 

"Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “Nicola Sturgeon has launched more independence campaigns than ferries."

[Taffin]

14 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Is the fact that it's being produced at all not unexpected to you?  "not remotely interested in delivering independence"

 

It is yes; it doesn't make it reckless though. It's about time, she's been sitting staring at an empty net.

 

6 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Hopefully it gets the ball rolling and the matter is laid to rest for a generation or eternity.  However ,.....

 

"Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “Nicola Sturgeon has launched more independence campaigns than ferries."

 

😂

[graygo]

10 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Hopefully it gets the ball rolling and the matter is laid to rest for a generation or eternity.  However ,.....

 

"Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “Nicola Sturgeon has launched more independence campaigns than ferries."

 

.

Edited June 13, 2022 by graygo

[Boof]

13 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Hopefully it gets the ball rolling and the matter is laid to rest for a generation or eternity.  However ,.....

 

"Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said: “Nicola Sturgeon has launched more independence campaigns than ferries."

 

Nicola Sturgeon has launched more independence campaigns than the Liberal Democrats have MSPs.

[Locky]

This might seem glaringly obvious, but doctor surgeries being ran by private firms, is that just an English thing? And how do they make money? I was of the belief that all GP's were just ran by the NHS, aside from private healthcare obviously.

[Lone Striker]

59 minutes ago, Locky said:

This might seem glaringly obvious, but doctor surgeries being ran by private firms, is that just an English thing? And how do they make money? I was of the belief that all GP's were just ran by the NHS, aside from private healthcare obviously.

I think its the same in Scotland.  The NHS doesn't actually run or own GP surgeries - probably a throwback to how GPs organised themselves prior to the NHS coming into being (1948).  No idea how the relationship between GPs and the NHS can be described - maybe just like a general contractor relationship perhaps ?

 

The building which a group of GPs work in could be owned by any commercial real estate company, leased to the practice "entity".

 

Mind you, there's regular headlines claiming the NHS is being sold off to big, bad private healthcare investors.   The NHS has always needed the services of private companies - e.g. safe disposal of clinical waste,  external lab analysis of  human tissue, suppliers of medical devices, service contracts on expensive diagnostic machines, catering,  etc - so its an endless source of seethe stories by journos with a grudge.

 

 

 

  

Edited June 13, 2022 by Lone Striker

[graygo]

9 hours ago, Locky said:

This might seem glaringly obvious, but doctor surgeries being ran by private firms, is that just an English thing? And how do they make money? I was of the belief that all GP's were just ran by the NHS, aside from private healthcare obviously.

 

There was a program on last night doing an "expose" on private surgeries. Their ratio of GP's to patients was half what NHS surgeries have. Almost impossible to physically see a doctor.

[hughesie27]

10 hours ago, Locky said:

This might seem glaringly obvious, but doctor surgeries being ran by private firms, is that just an English thing? And how do they make money? I was of the belief that all GP's were just ran by the NHS, aside from private healthcare obviously.

Would imagine private company operate under the banner of NHS and send the Government the bill.

They can also offer private health care at a cost to the "customer". A lot of Dentists up here I think offer that sort of service.

[hughesie27]

Will preface this with a non racist context warning as I know how it could come across.

 

From a biological standpoint. Why are humans not considered different "breeds" based on race? Is our genetic differences that minute compared to dogs and cats for example?

Are there any other animals that can display clear polarising characteristics that are not defined by different breeds?

 

[A Boy Named Crow]

19 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Will preface this with a non racist context warning as I know how it could come across.

 

From a biological standpoint. Why are humans not considered different "breeds" based on race? Is our genetic differences that minute compared to dogs and cats for example?

Are there any other animals that can display clear polarising characteristics that are not defined by different breeds?

 

I think broadly speaking, the difference is in intentionality. Races exist through genetic differences between groups of people historically separated by geography. until relatively recently you'd only have ever met and procreated with people who had a similar genetic make up to your own. 

 

Dog breeds were created through selective breeding of specific dogs,  by people. Maybe if we'd never bothered, if we'd just let dogs hump whatever other dog was nearby, we'd think of them as races too.

 

Interesting question!

[superjack]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Will preface this with a non racist context warning as I know how it could come across.

 

From a biological standpoint. Why are humans not considered different "breeds" based on race? Is our genetic differences that minute compared to dogs and cats for example?

Are there any other animals that can display clear polarising characteristics that are not defined by different breeds?

 

I've always thought something similar as well, are the different races effectively different breeds? 

This first came to me when a former mate showed his true colours, he was a racist *******. I said "if you don't like people because their skin is darker, why did you get a black dog?" His reply was "what difference does the colour make"?

That was out last conversation, I hoped that he would get what I was saying, especially after his answer quoted above.

[A Boy Named Crow]

2 hours ago, jonesy said:

 

Not sure, although I didn't once meet a Chinese woman who was adamant that Caucasians had completely different physiology and therefore shouldn't be admitted to a Chinese hospital because their doctors wouldn't know how to deal with them.

Europeans do tend to have the alcohol processing enzyme,  which many Asians lack...maybe she's got a point... if the hospital visit was bevy related...

[Cade]

"Breed" is a common term, used to describe a domesticated animal or plant group that have been bred by humans to all be similar.  

 

"Race" is a term used to classify subspecies. But it's not an officially scientific term. It's typically only applied to humans.

 

The difference is really just linguistic.

Taxonomy (the science of classifying living things) uses neither term.

[A Boy Named Crow]

5 hours ago, jonesy said:

I think she was just an auld racist boot, rather than an enzyme specialist, Crow.  

 

However, the one time I fell off my bike in China whilst three sheets to the wind I did avoid the hospital and instead went to the 24-hr pharmacy to get the iodine and bandages for a DIY job. Hence why there's a scar on my chin to this day  

Two ways to read that.  Either you injured your chin coming off your bike... or the pharmacist took exception and gave you a bleaching. People can draw their own conclusions 🤠

[Unknown user]

9 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Europeans do tend to have the alcohol processing enzyme,  which many Asians lack...maybe she's got a point... if the hospital visit was bevy related...

 

Is it right that this is comes from thousands of years of Europeans brewing beer to make water safe while Asians made tea from it?

[hughesie27]

13 hours ago, Cade said:

"Breed" is a common term, used to describe a domesticated animal or plant group that have been bred by humans to all be similar.  

 

"Race" is a term used to classify subspecies. But it's not an officially scientific term. It's typically only applied to humans.

 

The difference is really just linguistic.

Taxonomy (the science of classifying living things) uses neither term.

Interesting. What term do they use then. Or is it just ignored altogether.

[Cade]

"Species" is about as accurate as the official scientific Taxonomical hierarchy gets.  

Domain is the first rank and puts everything into three groups. Single-cell organisms with no cell nucleus; single-cell organisms with a cell nucelus; everything else.

Kingdom is next. Very basically this splits things into plant, animal, fungal or other.

The next few steps further narrow down definitions of life into narrower and narrower groupings.

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Then Species is the final official step used to describe an exact lifeform.

Again, very loosely, all members of a Species can mate with each other and produce fertile offspring.

Horses and Donkeys may produce Asses when they interbreed, but Asses are all sterile.

The same applies to Lions and Tigers, who can breed but produce sterile offspring.

 

To go one step beyond Species brings us into the murky world of subspecies.

The definition of a subspecies is still very hazy and is argued hotly in scientific circles.

[Dick Dastardly]

Does Greta Thunburg actually have any workable ideas on how to stop global warming or does she just spout a load of rhetoric? 

[tightrope]

Is Paul McCartney dead? Feckin sounded like an imposter tonight.

[A Boy Named Crow]

1 hour ago, tightrope said:

Is Paul McCartney dead? Feckin sounded like an imposter tonight.

You're not alone 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead

[tightrope]

Yup that moon shite and feckin twin towers, Kennedy pish. Thank feck were living with lizards in an alternative reality. 

[Greedy Jambo]

Who built the pyramids and how were they made?

[Dick Dastardly]

2 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Who built the pyramids and how were they made?

Egyptians with massive stones

[Dawnrazor]

10 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Egyptians with massive stones

 

[Greedy Jambo]

Nobody knows though eh?

It's mental.

[benny]

On 26/06/2022 at 00:28, tightrope said:

Yup that moon shite and feckin twin towers, Kennedy pish. Thank feck were living with lizards in an alternative reality. 

The moon.I just found out that America and Australia are wider from West to East than the moon.

[A Boy Named Crow]

4 hours ago, benny said:

The moon.I just found out that America and Australia are wider from West to East than the moon.

This got me curious, I wanted to know how the surface area of Australia compares to the surface area of the moon (not even close, the moon kicks Australia's arse).

 

While googling though,  one of the suggested questions was "Is the surface area of Australia bigger than the earth". For that to be suggested, there must have been people asking it, right? So now I'm wondering, how do folk who are THAT thick function from day to day???

 

[Dick Dastardly]

Whatever happened to acid rain? 

[Dick Dastardly]

13 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Nobody knows though eh?

It's mental.

I think they know they were built by Egyptian craftsmen, don't they? I'm not sure if its known how they got the massive blocks of stone into place though 

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I think they know they were built by Egyptian craftsmen, don't they? I'm not sure if its known how they got the massive blocks of stone into place though 

 

Yes, the ones in Egypt were built by Egyptians.  The ones in Mexico were built by Aztecs.  In both cases, they were built for religious reasons, either as a tomb for a god or as as a symbol of worship.

 

In Egypt, the HOW question cannot be answered with certainty because no records have ever been found, but the best guess is that massive ramps of sand were built and the stones were hauled up.  It is also widely accepted that the thousands of people who worked on the project were not slaves, as depicted in "The Ten Commandments", but were pious volunteers.   

[Dick Dastardly]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Yes, the ones in Egypt were built by Egyptians.  The ones in Mexico were built by Aztecs.  In both cases, they were built for religious reasons, either as a tomb for a god or as as a symbol of worship.

 

In Egypt, the HOW question cannot be answered with certainty because no records have ever been found, but the best guess is that massive ramps of sand were built and the stones were hauled up.  It is also widely accepted that the thousands of people who worked on the project were not slaves, as depicted in "The Ten Commandments", but were pious volunteers.   

I hadn't thought of the South American pyramids, actually! 

I was just reading something the other day about the misconceived idea that slaves were used. Apparently most historians do believe that highly skilled, well paid craftsmen built them