Red herring: That is an entirely different argument from the one I’m replying to and has absolutely no bearing on the point I’m trying to make.
That being said you should really pick up a history book sometime, slaves were also sometimes bred in much the same way dogs are now.
Plus dog breeds are also mostly social constructs, to the point that the majority of Pitbull attacks are not actually done by Pitbulls but were misidentified.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 days ago
It’ll be hard for breeds of slaves to become “lesser” beings because it’s still humans v humans. There are some groups for example that are slightly better at diving because they live near water, and black people do fare better in the sun compared to white people. But again, the differences there are negligible.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Human is a species, dog is also a species. The exact same argument could be made that it’s still dogs v dogs. The only difference is that slave breeding didn’t happened often or long enough, humans are not special we’re animals and subject to the same biology that dogs, our lifespan are longer so it takes longer to breed us into anything as drastically different as a Chihuahua and a Rottweiler but it could be done just as easily and using the exact same techniques. And biologically speaking the differences between dog breeds is very minimal, they’re still the same species, and still can inter breed, it’s just a matter of different phenotypes which would erode in a couple of inter-breed generations.
You need to stop thinking that humans are special in any way or that races/breeds exist as anything more than “these look similar”. Sure, there is a genetic explanation of why they look similar, but claiming dogs that were bred for X are lesser, or more aggressive or anything is a slippery slope argument when humans have also been bred in recent history, and if you had read any statistics about this you would know that in both cases once you normalize for standard of living these differences disappear. In short the data proves that a Pitbull is not statistically significantly more aggressive than a Labrador that were raised in the same condition, but take a Labrador from puppy and spank him daily show him no love and make him fight for food and then act surprised Pikachu face when he attacks someone, it’s just that there exists a correlation between pieces of shit who like to do that and people who like Pitbulls.
In any case, this has gone terribly out of the point I was making originally, which you never replied to, and I’m tired of every answer you pulling a new Red Herring to avoid acknowledging that “X is a minority yet it’s responsible for the majority of fatalities, therefore X is violent” is a bad argument.