Sorry, late to the thread.
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
pushharder wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
pushharder wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
belligerent wrote:
I hate his policies, hate the way he talks, and hate the fact that he’s adored just for being black.
1/2 black. The other half is just as white as I am.
I love how people constantly forget that he is just as white as he is black.
Oh and i dont like Obama because he is a politician
I asked this question about a year ago. At what point does one of mixed ancestry become “white” or “black”? What is the magical fraction? 1/2? 5/8? 3/4? 7/8?
There is no answer to this question. There is no such thing as a “white” or “black” person. Race is entirely subjective.
So what criterion funnels a 1/2 black, 1/2 white man into the category of “black man”? Even if it is a subjective criterion.
It’s ENTIRELY subjective. By that I mean there is no basis of evidence to suggest race exists beyond the mind of the racist(people who make unreasonable prejudgments based on physical or other features THEY identify as race).
This is true, I have heard people claim to be 1/15 Native American, and they think they are Native American. I think there is a point where you become so diluted that you are a mutt.
I mean at a certain point i think people need to start embracing the fact that they are AMERICAN. Where I live people will ask others what they are and the responses will range from Italian, Irish, “x”, etc. and it infuriates me because if you were born in the US or on a US military base you are American. I am first generation and am proud as hell to be American.
I also really get how people can say race doesnt exist. Tell the whole population of the jewish people that they arent a race. or why do certain illness only effect certain populations like sickle-cell anaemia? Just because race exists doesnt inherently make it a bad thing.[/quote]
I would be glad to tell “the whole population of the jewish people they aren’t a race” if I could even distinguish who that would be exactly.
Individuals that develop sickle cell anemia have a homozygous mutation of the gene that encodes for hemoglobin. This mutation is inherited from their parents. The rest of their physical features are incidental and meaningless to the presence or absence of the hemoglobin S mutation.
The thing with Jewish people, is that many of them stay within their race, so Jewish people are marrying Jewish people. When that happens, you have less likelihood of genetic defects being diluted out of the culture. I have Thalassemia, which is a form of anemia. Basically, my blood carries less hemoglobin, so I run the risk of feeling dizzy sometimes. Not a big deal, but my doc told me that 85% of European men have it, so I fall right in there.
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
I also really get how people can say race doesnt exist. Tell the whole population of the jewish people that they arent a race. or why do certain illness only effect certain populations like sickle-cell anaemia? Just because race exists doesnt inherently make it a bad thing.[/quote]
Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/Lahn.pdf
[quote]Sloth wrote:
phishfood1128 wrote:
I also really get how people can say race doesnt exist. Tell the whole population of the jewish people that they arent a race. or why do certain illness only effect certain populations like sickle-cell anaemia? Just because race exists doesnt inherently make it a bad thing.
Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/Lahn.pdf
[/quote]
Finally. I have been vindicated. All my life i thought that and thought like that.
i personally feel there are races of people. Thats all. Thats how i look at the world. Its not a bad thing. every person is different but i also think certain groups (jewish, asians) have common features which would indicate there is more to “human identity” other than ethnicty which is man made and changeable (e.g. czechoslovakia)
It is a matter of some people, when not liking a thing or feeling that its absence would be a better thing, deciding to re-define words so that what they don’t like “doesn’t exist” anymore.
Racial discrimination: double-plus ungood. Therefore “race” does not exist except as wrong-think of those not properly re-educated.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It is a matter of some people, when not liking a thing or feeling that its absence would be a better thing, deciding to re-define words so that what they don’t like “doesn’t exist” anymore.
Racial discrimination: double-plus ungood. Therefore “race” does not exist except as wrong-think of those not properly re-educated.[/quote]
lol where can i get some re-education classes? I tend to ignore most political correctness nonsense that gets sent my way.
For those under 18, it’s available for free at your friendly neighborhood government school.
If over 18 and having a high-school diploma, it’s available at most any university or community college in various departments. There you can learn very politically-correct facts such as that, actually, all of mankind is one race. And you will feel very good, and probably disdainful of the lowlife that are ignorant of these things.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
Sorry, late to the thread.[/quote]
Where in Czech do you live?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
For those under 18, it’s available for free at your friendly neighborhood government school.
If over 18 and having a high-school diploma, it’s available at most any university or community college in various departments. There you can learn very politically-correct facts such as that, actually, all of mankind is one race. And you will feel very good. Highly recommended.[/quote]
lol im 24 i guess i missed the boat on enlightenment.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
For those under 18, it’s available for free at your friendly neighborhood government school.
If over 18 and having a high-school diploma, it’s available at most any university or community college in various departments. There you can learn very politically-correct facts such as that, actually, all of mankind is one race. And you will feel very good, and probably disdainful of the lowlife that are ignorant of these things.[/quote]
Yes, genetics certainly is a soft science.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It is a matter of some people, when not liking a thing or feeling that its absence would be a better thing, deciding to re-define words so that what they don’t like “doesn’t exist” anymore.
Racial discrimination: double-plus ungood. Therefore “race” does not exist except as wrong-think of those not properly re-educated.[/quote]
ORLY?
And yet you think “hispanics” is a different race whereas no European would dream to think that a Spaniard, Greek or Turk belongs to a different “race”.
If we ignore what is currently fashionable – and we must if we want to distinguish Newspeak from what words have generally meant – and instead focus on historical usage, you are wrong. Many, including Europeans, divided European “whites” into Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean races.
Do you think that man is so biologically different from anything else that different word usage is required?
For any other species, where a group is definable by visible or measurable characteristics, said group having some geographical separation from other groups with therefore much less breeding occurring between groups than within each group, these are called different races or sometimes subspecies.
All except for, these days, man, among the politically-correct group.
The same person who has no trouble claiming that persons of one [xxxx] are being discriminated against or should receive some special treatment or for which there should be hate crime penalties if they are assaulted, or so forth, insists that [xxxx] does not exist.
Sorry, it is political correctness, not truth, though if you want to redefine words then you can make anything true. E.g., if one redefines “5” to mean “4,” then “2+2=5” is true. (Though anyone doing this is being stupid.) Or if one wants to erase everything that the word “race” means with regard to mammals and other organisms, then you can say that mankind is not comprised of more than one race. But this is foolishness.
The same people that argue that there are no different [xxxx]'s, everyone is the same [xxxx}, still have no trouble telling if a child could plausibly be the product of the parents pushing him or her around, or clearly comes from a group that genetically differs enough to be visibly different in a recognizable way.
They just don’t like using the word “race” for that because they don’t consider it politically correct, and/or they have learned from people that felt that way. It’s much warmer and snugglier feeling to say that we’re all the same race. But it is Newspeak.
[quote]pat wrote:
pushmepullme wrote:
Sorry, late to the thread.
Where in Czech do you live?[/quote]
Denver.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If we ignore what is currently fashionable – and we must if we want to distinguish Newspeak from what words have generally meant – and instead focus on historical usage, you are wrong. Many, including Europeans, divided European “whites” into Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean races.
[/quote]
How does that help your argument?
To show that what was considered a different “race” a few hundred years ago is no longer seen that way just shows how malleable that term really is.
The only guys in Europe who obsessed about that stuff in Europe in the last 100 years have not the best reputation when it comes to the rational thought department.
They were snappy dressers though and knew how to keep a rhythm.
Especially when marching.
-
It shows that you were wrong in your assertion.
-
It shows you didn’t know what you were talking about in the example you provided.
-
You ducked out of all else. As one example, why do you think the word “race” properly means something different when applied to man than it does for any other species? Certainly a major and relevant question, and you ducked right out.
You are wrong in thinking that this was from people “obsessing” about race. This was the view of anthropologists of the day. And completely in accordance with how the word was used in biological sciences for all other species.
Also, if you think it was the Nazis that invented this, you are wrong yet again. They didn’t even use the same categorization, as they believed in an “Aryan” race. The dating would also not work out if you want to attribute it to them.
I am surprised though that you are not blaming America, and even apparently finding flaw with Europe.
For your further edification, from the American Heritage Medical Dictionary:
race definition - medical
race (rÃ???s)
noun
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A population of organisms differing from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
So tell us again how mankind is comprised of only one race – without employing Newspeak reversal or nullification of word meanings?
People claiming that mankind is all one race belong to the category of being “educated” to know that which not only is not so, but which the vast majority of humanity can plainly see is not so.
With enough “education” of the politically-correct type, apparently many people can be made to believe anything.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
-
It shows that you were wrong in your assertion.
-
It shows you didn’t know what you were talking about in the example you provided.
-
You ducked out of all else. As one example, why do you think the word “race” properly means something different when applied to man than it does for any other species? Certainly a major and relevant question, and you ducked right out.
You are wrong in thinking that this was from people “obsessing” about race. This was the view of anthropologists of the day. And completely in accordance with how the word was used in biological sciences for all other species.
Also, if you think it was the Nazis that invented this, you are wrong yet again. They didn’t even use the same categorization, as they believed in an “Aryan” race.
I am surprised though that you are not blaming America, and even apparently finding flaw with Europe.[/quote]
-
I was not wrong in my assertions. Ask any European on this board whether he believes a Spaniard or Greek is of a different race- I would be surprised if you found one.
-
Therefore obsolete.
-
I dont think that it does or should. I find it hard to believe that anthropologists would divide Europeans into races. The best that you have would be some academics discussing some scholarly principles, not race as a social reality as in the US.
Also, I never said that the Nazis invented it, I said that they were the last ones obsessing about it, and they are considered to have been a bit of a slip on the quest to create a more civilized and rational society.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
For your further edification, from the American Heritage Medical Dictionary:
race definition - medical
race (rÃ???s)
noun
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A population of organisms differing from others of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
So tell us again how mankind is comprised of only one race – without employing Newspeak reversal or nullification of word meanings?
[/quote]
Well that is your problem right there, that Americans define it that way!
Cereally, we dont.