[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why is Celtic a race but the Irish town with big ears isn?t?
[/quote]
Why is Australia a continent, but the North Island of New Zealand isn’t?[/quote]
New Zealand is incontinent, I believe.
Hey, where’s Makavali? Ain’t seen him in a coon’s age.
(Oh crap, and on this thread and everything…shit)[/quote]
Never understood that expression. Raccoons don’t live very long.
And while the difference between islands and continents is not at all black and white, I’ll just take a shot in the dark and guess that your opinion of New Zealand is colored by inexperience. But let me tell you, Mother Nature was not in the least niggardly, bestowing natural beauty upon the island nation in spades.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why is Celtic a race but the Irish town with big ears isn?t?
[/quote]
Why is Australia a continent, but the North Island of New Zealand isn’t?[/quote]
New Zealand is incontinent, I believe.
Hey, where’s Makavali? Ain’t seen him in a coon’s age.
(Oh crap, and on this thread and everything…shit)[/quote]
Never understood that expression. Raccoons don’t live very long.
And while the difference between islands and continents is not at all black and white, I’ll just take a shot in the dark and guess that your opinion of New Zealand is colored by inexperience. But let me tell you, Mother Nature was not in the least niggardly, bestowing natural beauty upon the island nation in spades.[/quote]
[quote]confusion wrote:
AngryChicken,I understand your post and you make some good points. This I disagree with:They aren’t taught about the FACT that now there are NO impediments to a minority gaining status and wealth through hard work.
Tell that to an inner city black kid who is surrounded by violence,et…Also,many white folks disregard the fact that black people were slaves in the usa and what that would mean to them today. I know if my family was slaves until 150 years ago,I would be angry at the people who did it.
[/quote]
The vast majority of blacks wouldn’t know if their ancestors were slaves or not. They very well may have been slave owners. When you start researching your family history you find all sorts of interesting things. Obama found out he had slave owners amongst his ancestors for example. And no, I would not be “angry” at people today who may be related to someone who owned slaves 150 years ago. And as I’ve pointed out previously the majority of slaves brought to the New World in the first century of the slave trade were white. No, they were not “indentured servants” but rather “slaves”. For example, Oliver Cromwell kidnapped 30,000 Irish children from their parents and shipped them to Jamaica and auctioned them off as slaves. This is just a single example of a massive slave trade that today is largely unknown because it doesn’t fit the narrative of the left.
See above. An assumption that someone is a descendent of slaves just because they’re black is an incorrect assumption.
Right. And in 40,000+ years the Australian aborigines for example, experienced absolutely no progress whatsoever. They’re simply not capable of adapting to modernity. I’ve had a lot of experience with aboriginals and I know what I’m talking about.
Nothing specific here I can address. It seems like you are saying blacks are not responsible for their actions; that they lack moral agency. I disagree.
[quote]
Not good enough to wash your hands of the situation. you might not want to be responsible fot the situation,your family may not have even been in America then,but this IS the responsibility of the one’s who brought this on our country,frankly,white people. Just because the perpetrators are long since dead,doesn’t change the fact that their legacy has to be dealt with. Yes I know,blacks enslaved blacks and sold them to blacks and whites etc…that changes nothing about my statement. Confusion[/quote]
As a person who is largely of Irish descent I’m wondering why I can’t use the slavery excuse.
This is a serious question. Take a look at the article. I’m suggesting that biological reasons play a large part in why Irish people have adapted to modernity and freedom whilst African Americans for the most part have not.
Of course. I was having a joke and I assume the person I was responding to was joking about your ridiculous argument about races not existing because they’re not rigidly defined.
I don’t think you know what “liberal” means. You’re a “classical liberal” but on the issue of race you are on the far left.
See what I wrote the last six times I answered. If you have a dispute with me answer then present it. Don’t pretend I haven’t answered. This is my answer again:
When we talk of “race” we mean the unique population clusters who have diverged on their own separate evolutionary path.
^^ You’ll have to present a meaningful response to that if you want me to reply. As it is you’ve done nothing but troll this thread as even friends of yours have recognised.
No you didn’t. A “family” does not meet the definition. It’s a troll job.
What’s the “line” where the ocean meets the land? What’s the “line” where the atmosphere becomes space? As I said, a troll job.
Firstly, if you’d read the article you’d see that has been addressed. There is no exact amount and furthermore even the same genes can produce unique biological types due to isolation from other communities.
When we talk of “race” we’re talking about these unique population clusters. Without such a term we would be greatly restricted in how we can communicate these differences and the concept of “unique population clusters”. And that is the whole point of denying race. See Newspeak.
I haven’t drawn any strict, rigid lines. But to meaningfully talk about the differences between populations we need a word.
No they’re not.
Then how can we talk about these large land masses? We need a word. Continent is that word.
[quote]
though largely as used today, they are just names for sake of reference like the naming and defining of towns or countries. Yes, they are convention, they have to real meaning in the physical world. From the first statement in wiki “A continent is one of several very large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria”. And humans don’t differentiate morality, rule of law, or human rights based on continental classifications the way we do with race.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve had dinner in DD’s home with him and his lovely wife. He’s easy to get along with and his wife is a gracious beautiful woman.[/quote]
And that puts you at a disadvantage. I have never met anyone from T-Nation so I don’t have to worry about personal relationships being harmed. I can shoot straight.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve had dinner in DD’s home with him and his lovely wife. He’s easy to get along with and his wife is a gracious beautiful woman.[/quote]
And that puts you at a disadvantage. I have never met anyone from T-Nation so I don’t have to worry about personal relationships being harmed. I can shoot straight.[/quote]
It has its advantages as well as its disadvantages, I assure you. The disadvantages are vastly outweighed.
But I have no doubts I can shoot as straight as you if not straighter. Put it this way – I’m Quigley, you’re Marston.
Nah. I was always a Randolph Scott kind of guy.
By the way, the Westerns that Budd Boetticher made with Randolph Scott were awesome. Best Westerns ever made after John Ford’s epics. They’ve been released on DVD now too. Highly recommend.
Shit! Just checked Amazon and the Boetticher box set is out of print!? And I lost mine with the storage unit fiasco. Bummer.
[quote]confusion wrote:
AngryChicken,I understand your post and you make some good points. This I disagree with:They aren’t taught about the FACT that now there are NO impediments to a minority gaining status and wealth through hard work.
Tell that to an inner city black kid who is surrounded by violence,et…Also,many white folks disregard the fact that black people were slaves in the usa and what that would mean to them today. I know if my family was slaves until 150 years ago,I would be angry at the people who did it.
[/quote]
The vast majority of blacks wouldn’t know if their ancestors were slaves or not. They very well may have been slave owners. When you start researching your family history you find all sorts of interesting things. Obama found out he had slave owners amongst his ancestors for example. And no, I would not be “angry” at people today who may be related to someone who owned slaves 150 years ago. And as I’ve pointed out previously the majority of slaves brought to the New World in the first century of the slave trade were white. No, they were not “indentured servants” but rather “slaves”. For example, Oliver Cromwell kidnapped 30,000 Irish children from their parents and shipped them to Jamaica and auctioned them off as slaves. This is just a single example of a massive slave trade that today is largely unknown because it doesn’t fit the narrative of the left.
See above. An assumption that someone is a descendent of slaves just because they’re black is an incorrect assumption.
Right. And in 40,000+ years the Australian aborigines for example, experienced absolutely no progress whatsoever. They’re simply not capable of adapting to modernity. I’ve had a lot of experience with aboriginals and I know what I’m talking about.
Nothing specific here I can address. It seems like you are saying blacks are not responsible for their actions; that they lack moral agency. I disagree.
[quote]
Not good enough to wash your hands of the situation. you might not want to be responsible fot the situation,your family may not have even been in America then,but this IS the responsibility of the one’s who brought this on our country,frankly,white people. Just because the perpetrators are long since dead,doesn’t change the fact that their legacy has to be dealt with. Yes I know,blacks enslaved blacks and sold them to blacks and whites etc…that changes nothing about my statement. Confusion[/quote]
As a person who is largely of Irish descent I’m wondering why I can’t use the slavery excuse.
This is a serious question. Take a look at the article. I’m suggesting that biological reasons play a large part in why Irish people have adapted to modernity and freedom whilst African Americans for the most part have not.[/quote]
I get what you’re saying and won’t push the issue too hard . White slaves? Yes. Can you use the slavery card? Yes,if you are descended from slaves,but I get your point. One thing remains different about you compared to aboriginal Australians and african americans. You are white. Yes that does make it different. Keep in mind whites feared hated what have you,blacks from their first interaction with them. The hatred and distrust may.have grown over time,but existed from the beginning,long before black gang crime,etc. The difference as you know for a white Irishman is obvious. Once you’re not a slave anymore and living in a mainly white country,no one knows you were a slave and won’t despise you. People don’t see your skin color and think of you as the.closest race to animals and monkeys:) you comments on aboriginals I won’t dispute.lol. frankly,tho,with.all candor,I don’t have a problem with.someone being a racist,hating fat people,or anything like that. I.prefer that they.like me,but hating me is ok too
I used to have a safe deposit box in Tombstone, AZ. I stored a revolver there.
I visited Deadwood a few times, the last time through the hills were ablaze with a wildfire and the entire area shrouded in smoke. Was a wildland firefighter and just passing through, headed to a North Dakota range fire.
Found the actual Hole in the Wall in Wyoming all by myself in a four wheel drive pickup (it’s not marked). Only a dirt path to it.
Have galloped among the saguaro near the Arizona/Mexico border, “making a loop” so as to rope a real, live human being on the run on foot. A Crow Indian from Montana rode with me.
Used to be a horseshoer on a wagon train that traveled the West.
Have stood in the actual wagon wheel ruts of the Oregon Trail in WY. Got the photo.
Have a friend that roped a 7 point bull elk, tied him to two trees, rode back down to the ranch and got his bow and…filled his archery permit. His dad once roped a coyote as well as a black bear.
I’m wanted in Nevada right now for not paying a “wasting of a natural resource” (speeding) ticket in 1987. Yes, 1987. It was a $15 fine then. Almost went to jail over the deal a few weeks ago.
Still hope to fulfill a youthful dream to ride horseback along the continental divide from Canada to Mexico.[/quote]
I remember that elk roping story, and the circumstances under which you first told it to me. I remember that fantastic drive we took out to the Salton Sea that day, past Mecca (ha!) and back up over the mountains.
That was a damn good day.
EDIT:
You must, must, MUST meet Cortes’ dad. I think you and he have a lot in common, and at very least could exchange some really amazing stories over a bottle of bourbon. We ought to try to make this happen.
Of course. I was having a joke and I assume the person I was responding to was joking about your ridiculous argument about races not existing because they’re not rigidly defined.
[/quote]
But if such things like continents are used in science they are rigidly defined first.
In today’s world the word classical is imperative. And yes, I’d agree I’m not far off from a classical liberal.
In today’s world the word classical is imperative. And yes, I’d agree I’m not far off from a classical liberal.
I have presented a different definition on your version of “race”. That all genetic differences are due to the same causes and logically, in terms of “racism” indistinct. It is as racist to discriminate against large ears as it is eye shape or skin color. If we are going to discuss race in terms of racism (to try to get off these tangents), morality, and daily life, instead of in terms of genetic anthropology (which I’ll just agree to disagree, especially since it is impossible to really know the genetic make-up of everyone you meet), every unique genetic combination is in effect its’ own micro-race.
Let me ask you, do you think discrimination based on genetic traits, that the discriminating person believes is linked to racial characteristics, is morally different than if the person did the same thing for a genetic trait that they did not mentally link to whatever their version of race is?
I presented more than just the family unit.
A scientist in a study would and must exactly define those things if they intended to use them.
For example if a scientist were going to study the flux of particles both into and out of our atmosphere he would first have to set an exact barrier, for example a line of altitude above sea level, before he could start any measurement. Same thing if one were to discuss the study of continental land mass, I’d expect a rigid map of lines and you to know exactly where you defined the shore. I honestly cannot understand how you could really study races without doing this.
But I digress. You don’t seem willing to give me the info I think I need to evaluate what you really mean by genetic race, and it isn’t important enough to keep asking.
[quote]
Firstly, if you’d read the article you’d see that has been addressed. There is no exact amount and furthermore even the same genes can produce unique biological types due to isolation from other communities.
When we talk of “race” we’re talking about these unique population clusters. Without such a term we would be greatly restricted in how we can communicate these differences and the concept of “unique population clusters”. And that is the whole point of denying race. See Newspeak.
I haven’t drawn any strict, rigid lines. But to meaningfully talk about the differences between populations we need a word.
No they’re not.
Then how can we talk about these large land masses? We need a word. Continent is that word.
[quote]
though largely as used today, they are just names for sake of reference like the naming and defining of towns or countries. Yes, they are convention, they have to real meaning in the physical world. From the first statement in wiki “A continent is one of several very large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria”. And humans don’t differentiate morality, rule of law, or human rights based on continental classifications the way we do with race.[/quote]
Agree to disagree. No more trolling.[/quote]
Honestly, if the term race were to stay in the world of science where scientists understanding the reference to genetically adapted differences in certain population centers with some real understanding of what the real boundaries of the reference were and what the genetic differences really were, I don’t have a huge problem with the word. Though I still find it generally too inexact for rigorous science and study without some better definition. But the thread is about racism. It’s about race as used by individuals as they interact with others in daily life judging and evaluating and reacting to, at most, physical characteristics of individuals as evaluated and measure by the human eye. And in such circumstance I find the use of the word race utterly and completely preposterous.
Some people here may be linking dark skin and crime and calling that racial. This is total BS, dark skin isn’t a race. The politically defined race used for the evaluation of what’s racist (what I referred to as commonly held beliefs about race) are completely and utterly out of line with what youâ??ve roughly described with genetics. That’s fine you, and some group of scientists use a word with a certain definition in the course of study. However, that definition can only marginally be applied to discourse of racism and you can be assured that isn’t what the president means the next time he mentions “race” relations.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
But if such things like continents are used in science they are rigidly defined first.
[/quote]
But who the heck is talking about science? You are. I’m not. I’ve made that clear from the start.
… £ â?¬â?¬â?¬ ^**} } ?&$$+<£â?¢â?¢
You do realise that your position on race is a radical left position right? You realise that 50 years ago no one believed what you do. Not Democrats; not Republicans. No one. They’d think you were insane if you told them what you’ve said here.
Again, this is a leftist red herring. I’ve said before, people don’t discriminate because of “the colour of their skin”. It’s not about “skin colour”. It’s about the profound cultural and biological differences between races.
Morally different? Look, I could care less what people think about these things so long as they’re not malicious and hateful.
Um…yeah, I seem to recall you asking if the Irish are a race and I answered that then you asked if Japanese and Koreans are and I answered that.
Great. We’re not scientists in a study and we’re not talking about scientists in a study.
We’re not studying races scientifically.
[quote]
…
though largely as used today, they are just names for sake of reference like the naming and defining of towns or countries. Yes, they are convention, they have to real meaning in the physical world. From the first statement in wiki “A continent is one of several very large landmasses on Earth. They are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria”. And humans don’t differentiate morality, rule of law, or human rights based on continental classifications the way we do with race.[/quote]
It was a rhetorical question.
Pages and pages of irrelevancy. What scientists have to do has nothing to do with it.
Look, I think I’m going to have to stop responding to your posts.
That’s the problem. As I said, most the world today would think you’re insane and I can understand why.
Okay. I understand your position. I think it’s absurd. There’s nothing more to say.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But who the heck is talking about science? You are. I’m not.
[/quote]
Ah, now I think I understand the situation better. I had some notion that your definitions were attempts at defining race scientifically. I thought the definitions implied such, especially since you denied a social construct so adamantly and you made reference to measures like IQ. But, if I’d understood that your beliefs on race and racism have nothing to do with science I never would have bothered responding. My mistake. I assumed you were a person that you aren’t. I cannot say that I understand your view, but I know what they are and I don’t care to try understand you any longer.
And, in consideration, I actually kind of agree with you. I seemingly cannot think the way most people seem to. I cannot, in my mind, separate science from the discussion at hand. Maybe that does make me a bit insane.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And, in consideration, I actually kind of agree with you. I seemingly cannot think the way most people seem to. I cannot, in my mind, separate science from the discussion at hand. Maybe that does make me a bit insane.[/quote]
Don’t worry. Its ok:) I have suspected from the beginning that SM has strong views on race. I suspect his idea is to let us all know that some things considered racist today,arent. Also,that the word racism is over used. White people can’t play the race card. That races have distinct qualities and it is tberefore ok to have certain assumptions about other races. That blacks accuse whites of racism at the drop of a hat and that’s bullshit. I will guess that SM feels racially superior to Aboriginal Australians and feels there are good reasons to feel that way…that he finds certain races possess more positive qualities than others,probably the white race ?..and that he is still a good person,in fact a very good person. What do you think?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And, in consideration, I actually kind of agree with you. I seemingly cannot think the way most people seem to. I cannot, in my mind, separate science from the discussion at hand. Maybe that does make me a bit insane.[/quote]
Don’t worry. Its ok:) I have suspected from the beginning that SM has strong views on race. I suspect his idea is to let us all know that some things considered racist today,arent. Also,that the word racism is over used. White people can’t play the race card. That races have distinct qualities and it is tberefore ok to have certain assumptions about other races. That blacks accuse whites of racism at the drop of a hat and that’s bullshit. I will guess that SM feels racially superior to Aboriginal Australians and feels there are good reasons to feel that way…that he finds certain races possess more positive qualities than others,probably the white race ?..and that he is still a good person,in fact a very good person. What do you think?[/quote]
Wow, sounds like you’ve been reading my mind. I love it when people post line after line of strawmen and things I never said.
