-
-
well...
I'm christian but since I'm human I don't love everyone, but that was the only choice that came close to how I feel. -
Another option
This poll is kind of funny.... I'd like to add a new option (No offense ment, Crazyhead):
Altough I don't feel the need to express an opinion on the subject... I'm a Christian, people are super and *stuff* (subject to terms and conditions, see your local dealer to find out more), they make me pro-nuclear, but whoever posted this poll is retarded...
Once again, no offense ment... haha -
i love everyone!
-
huh
The human race is constantly changing; those who like it or do not like it are simply taking one fixed view of the human race as it is in flux, but not what it is as one is deciding. I can admire the human race, but only small parts of it at a time and at certain times in history. -
I think its a rat race and the rats are winning.
-
-
I agree mud, Love the siner but hate the sin , sometimes its hard to seperate one from the other
-
-
I prefer animals to humans a lot of the time. They give you love and attention and don't ARGUE!!lol
-
THERE IS NOTHING TO REJOICE ABOUT HUMAN RACE "GET THE MANUAL...TO BE SUCCESSFUL"
There is nothing to rejoice about human race, which has failed to distribute evenly the resources, it has got. For example, there is starvation in other parts of the world while there is more than enough in some parts of the world. Some countries are busy investing billions of dollars in military arsenals, wasting money that could have been used to better the lives of human race.
This shows human beings have failed dismally. They are cluesless. It is so unfortunate that while the world picture looks so gloomy, and the future bleak, some human beings have taken it upon themselves to preach day and night promoting man centered doctrines in the hopes of finding salvation for man.
I really wonder, when shall they learn that man centered doctrines do not work for human beings. And definitely, salvation of man does not come from these doctrines. The reason why we are in this predicament is because of these man-centered doctrines.
This is however, an acknowledgement by man that a manual for human beings is necessary. There is no manual, which beats the one; the human designer has, for human beings.
The success of man hinges on following this manual for human beings.
So, every human being should get hold of this manual. And let them meditate on it day and night. They will surely be successful.
-
I don't know, lol
I can't figure out which one to choose. I think the human race is, in general, a work of evolutionary art. A work of trial-and-error. I glorious work of nature.
-
It does seem to be a RACE for the finish line.
-
-
@_@
ok... dude....
that was quite possibly one of the LAMEST puns i have ever seen...
-
-
Ok so
why do YOU think the term "race" was attributed to humans? Think about it. What other context is there other than to do with competition? (it wasn't meant as a joke. It happens to be my observation and, quite likely, the observation of whoever started the term "the human race".) -
-
...
the term "race" means species, in this context...
...
by your logic on this subject, all happy people are homosexual because "gay" means happy...
a word can be used a number of ways...
and you blatently ignoring the context of the word for the sake of a really bad pun..
-
-
-
-
Race does not mean species with regard to humans.
There isn't a black species and a white species. Humans as a whole are a species. Race implies competition and if you consider the egoic nature of humans it is to compete. White verses black, wars between cultures, the way education operates, fighting for the attention of the female of the species, the corperate ladder, the space race, the battle for technological advantage. Its dog eat dog. It's all a race. Whoever came up with the term was most astute. There is no pun intended. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevent. I know my own intention. Similarly if a happy person says they are feeling gay why should THEY care what someone else thinks about the use of the term? Their intent is all that matters to them. So as there is a species called human there is no need to come up with a term like RACE unless there is another intention behind it. The term "species" already covers it. -
-
whether you meant to make a pun is irrelevant, it was a lame comment that misused a word....
you can think whatever you want, but i hang-out on this site to argue philosophy (or at least this sites version of philosophy), NOT to argue with YOU about misused words and bad jokes...
i'm not going to continue argueing with you over a point that can be proven by simply opening a dictionary; that would be even more dumb than your "race" comment...
-
-
You're entitled
to your opinion. I'm not here to make you like something. I was just suggesting there may be more to how certain words end up in our language and a possible scenario that a person's particular PHILOSOPHY brought the word into this particular use in the first place. It is PHILOSOPHY along with poetry that brings color to words that a dictionary does not. Dictionaries do not discuss the reasons why words come into being. -
-
the word "race" was attributed to species before it ever was used in the context of a competition...
maybe try to research before you try to act like you know what the hell your talking about next time... -
-
Fortunately
Weydon has done the research that you have failed to do Bucko (well at least research that debunks your last comment).
-
-
-
You're both wrong.
Race was used for running before it was used for differentiating people--and WAY longer before it was used for separating species further.
Most words are not coined on the spot and then catch on like wildfire. Language is an ever evolving process that is very complicated. "Race" for people of the same lineage, heredity, tribe, etc comes from "razza" in the Italian/Spanish/Portuguese region, for a word of the same meaning. Razza morphed into race overtime in English, though it is still simply razza or raza in those 3 languages. There was not a moment where a clever philosopher said "razza...that sounds like a word we use for running...I'm gonna start calling it that and see if it catches on!!!" and 500 years later it SO DID. It was just "borrowed" into our language and dialect over the years morphed it into "race".
"Race" for people literally just means a group of people. Earliest uses could simply be a single bloodline, a town, a tribe, a country. It would then naturally progress to a broader use of larger groups of other people, like the Norse or Persians, and then MORE so for Asians and Africans and so on. This broad use of different races of people were easily identified by certain physical attributes, so through lay confusion and natural progression, "race" on the whole refers to things like color of skin and whatnot. It is why sometimes race is simply "white" but other times it's "Easter European" or "Scandinavian", "Spanish" but other times "Dominican" or "Puerto Rican". Technically, while fairly obsolete, I could be considered the same race as my black and Asian and Hispanic and Middle Eastern neighbors because we're all in the same area with similar customs and attitudes and dialects.
When classifying species even more specifically, zoologists adopted "race". Creatures of the same species but had other things that distinguished them. Biologically and zoologically I am not of a different race than blacks and all that. There's not enough different between us. We're part of the human race. Culturally, in the other meaning of "race" which just arbitrarily means they had ancestors in this area of the world while I over here, I am different. -
"catching like wildfire" (or by a slower method) IS an "evolving process" (not seperate to an evolutionary one). You are saying that english converted razza into race (to mean running). So, according to you, it was used in english to mean running AFTER "morphing" from Razza. What you still have failed to show is where race changed (from running) to define variations of species. And that is the point I have been making all along.
-
No, I said: '"Race" for people of the same lineage, heredity, tribe, etc comes from "razza" '
Race for running comes from Old Norse "ras".
There was no point in time when race changed from running to variations in the species. Ras meant running up north and razza meant different people in the southwest. We adopted them both into two different words with different meanings but sound the same. They're called homophones. Like night and knight, or rose and rose.
Race, as a third definition for variations of a species came later on in zoology. They, inaccurately, adopted it from our use of race used to differentiate whites, blacks, etc. Biologically and zoologically there is no different race among humans, we don't meet the qualifications of being different races in that respect. Outside of those scientific fields, but culturally and anthropologically, blacks and whites are a different race. -
I think it all has to be speculative
because research is always after the fact. We all know that acedemics clash all the time and more credence is generally given to those through politics (money, heritage, cultural standing, letters after a name, etc..) It is not what you know, it is who. -
We have a lot of potential we just fail to recognise it because we direct our efforts in mostly the wrong places.
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
Forums /
General Philosophy /
| |
|
|
ForumsSign up for FREEA free allpoetry.com account is required to comment and participate. It's fast and free! 
Already a member?Advertising Supported |
|
Logout
Help
Terms of Use
Contact Us
Content Complaint
Our other sites: Poetry, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Stories, Quotations. © Social Design | |
Adding your reply:
Crazyhead
Dec 2 3:04 PM 2006
Reply