Orion, your posts on this basically can be summed up as “La-de-da, la-de-da, la-de-da: I have my fingers stuck in my ears and can’t hear you, you are wrong and I am right.”
Sorry, the dictionary says otherwise, as does your repeated ducking of key points.
/end
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Orion, your posts on this basically can be summed up as “La-de-da, la-de-da, la-de-da: I have my fingers stuck in my ears and can’t hear you, you are wrong and I am right.”
Sorry, the dictionary says otherwise, as does your repeated ducking of key points.
/end[/quote]
I am telling you that the concept of race as you have it in the US does not exist in Europe. yet I am the one ignoring reality?
Check out Sifus posts!
Does he complain that Turks, Pakistanians or whatever are of a different race or does he point out that they share a different culture?
You have examples right here, at your fingertips.
You may choose to ignore them, but there they are!
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Orion, your posts on this basically can be summed up as “La-de-da, la-de-da, la-de-da: I have my fingers stuck in my ears and can’t hear you, you are wrong and I am right.”
Sorry, the dictionary says otherwise, as does your repeated ducking of key points.
/end[/quote]
The definition of race uses the words “more or less distinct”.
For the record, I have no idea what a “black” person is any more than I know what a “purple” person is. The description of race is as meaningless to me in conversation as the description of political directions, or party affiliations, or of what clothes are fashionable, etc…
[quote]orion wrote:
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?
Well that is your problem right there, that Americans define it that way!
Cereally, we dont.
[/quote]
Then find out what the Oxford English Dictionary says, with regard to the medical / scientific meaning.
The fact that Europeans – as well as “enlightened” Americans – may for their own reasons do Newspeak on the English language means nothing other than that they do this.
The fact is that humanity indeed possesses geographic or global human populations distinguished as more or less distinct groups by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
The fact is that the word for that is humanity is comprised of different “races.”
I’m sorry that that doesn’t make you and many of your fellow Europeans feel good and that you like to pretend it’s not so, that mankind has only one race, or that there is no such thing. But what that pretending is, is sad, and being willfully ignorant, yet prideful and superior-feeling in this willful denial of reality.
animals are different and divided in that way. There are different breeds of dogs, cats, etc. So we agree on that. (if you dont i suggest you get out more often). Humans are animals. Is it crazy to think there are different types of humans? gasp, maybe different races? no that was too strong. Different “breeds” of humans? better? Why is it okay to subdivide all other animals based on genetic markers but impossible for humans, which last time i checked were considered animals.
i mean i see where it comes from. Orion you automatically associated race with the nazis. Race does not have to be a bad thing. Its just a means of classification.
Actually, while I agree with your general point, I don’t think comparison with domesticated animals is valid, but only with other animals in general.
Domesticated animals differ from the usual situation of different kinds of animals within the same species in several ways.
Belyaev’s research in domesticating wild foxes and other species by selective breeding showed that some unusual changes, such as appearance of variants in coat color, occur with domestication: that is to say, with selection for unusual docility. This differs from any wild animal or man.
Additionally, the fact that there is selection by an outside intelligence is quite different from the situation with any wild animal or man.
And there may well be less genetic difference, despite much greater visual difference. This may be a result of the above two factors. Where I have seen anything written on efforts to distinguish breeds of domestic animals by genetic means, the reports I’ve seen have always been of failure. In contrast, particularly with regard to the importance of genomics with regard to pharmacological response, but also in other regards, many things are known about different distribution of hereditary traits in different groups of people with ancestry associated with differing geographic areas.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Actually, while I agree with your general point, I don’t think comparison with domesticated animals is valid, but only with other animals in general.
Domesticated animals differ from the usual situation of different races (or subspecies) of animals in several ways.
Belyaev’s research in domesticating wild foxes and other species by selective breeding showed that some unusual changes, such as appearance of variants in coat color, occur with domestication: that is to say, with selection for unusual docility. This differs from any wild animal or man.
Additionally, the fact that there is selection by an outside intelligence is quite different from the situation with any wild animal or man.
And there may well be less genetic difference, despite much greater visual difference. This may be a result of the above two factors. Where I have seen anything written on efforts to distinguish breeds of domestic animals by genetic means, the reports I’ve seen have always been of failure. In contrast, particularly with regard to the importance of genomics with regard to pharmacological response, but also in other regards, many things are known about different distribution of hereditary traits in different groups of people with ancestry associated with differing geographic areas.
[/quote]
i was trying to make it simple because the issue was never addressed. You brought it up two times, if i recall correctly, and it wasnt mentioned. i agree with you point though. I was tryng to say what you did in your last sentence, i just didnt do as well of a job.
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
i mean i see where it comes from. Orion you automatically associated race with the nazis. Race does not have to be a bad thing. Its just a means of classification.
[/quote]
No, I did not.
I pointed out that it was a social construct that is not nearly as self evident for most Europeans as it is for him.
Hmm, Orion, if you are married and in the delivery room it becomes obvious that your wife has delivered a child fathered by a person having different genetic traits common to a group associated with ancestry from a quite different geographic area, will you be attributing this to a “social construct” or to physical reality, from different genetic traits, that you can pick up with your eye?
Or at least, 99% or so of people not “educated” to “know” that there is no such thing as different race can pick it up with their eyes. (And can be backed up by DNA analysis.)
Your “social construct” bit really is just acknowledgment that you’re engaging in Newspeak rather than operating according to reality.
Or maybe you have a theory how “social constructs” result in what appears, to the ignorant of course, to be hereditary? That is to say, a consequence of objective physical reality?
On the other hand, it could be that when you saw Me, Myself, and Irene you never did figure out that Jim Carrey wasn’t the biological dad. Frankly, if you didn’t, I wouldn’t be surprised 
[quote]tme wrote:
jawara wrote:I don’t like his plans to increase our national debt.
Bush’s plans to increase it via massive unfunded tax cuts and two wars don’t factor in for shit. It’s all about Obama’s stimulus spending, dood.
at what 4 times the size… oooh roads and teachers, how very controversial!
It’s been a year now. Can we get past the shady campaign smears now? Now we can’t complain about screwing normal people and giving it to rich people and corporations… That, that would be unamerican!
OMG!!!11!!!1!! LOLZ!!!11!!!1! Obama supports our current systems as they is!!1!
Call it socialist all you want, but our current system is based on redistribution. It taxes us, it gives to them. It is what it is. For all I know, you’re one of “them”. Are you a net payer, or a net receiver? If you’re military, then in all likelihood you’re a net receiver from a tax receipt standpoint. I want my money back.
[/quote]
Yep, we might get back to the taxation distributions of the commie Reagan era! But we’ll never get back to the corporate tax contributions of the Reagan era… But then, the incomes gains went to the rich and the corporate…
[quote]phishfood1128 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Did you notice the word between “who” and “about”?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
orion wrote:
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?
Well that is your problem right there, that Americans define it that way!
Cereally, we dont.
Then find out what the Oxford English Dictionary says, with regard to the medical / scientific meaning.
The fact that Europeans – as well as “enlightened” Americans – may for their own reasons do Newspeak on the English language means nothing other than that they do this.
The fact is that humanity indeed possesses geographic or global human populations distinguished as more or less distinct groups by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
The fact is that the word for that is humanity is comprised of different “races.”
I’m sorry that that doesn’t make you and many of your fellow Europeans feel good and that you like to pretend it’s not so, that mankind has only one race, or that there is no such thing. But what that pretending is, is sad, and being willfully ignorant, yet prideful and superior-feeling in this willful denial of reality.[/quote]
Look, this is not about me wanting to feel good or trying to be PC.
I am simply telling you that someone that is considered to be of a different “race” in the US would not be in Europe.
Maybe if he is black, but if he is just dark skinned like a Sicilian for example he is European and thats it.
Not even our right wing populist parties use it, it is simply a non issue.
So how does that work?
A Spaniard is “white” in Europe and “hispanic” in the US?
Well, go check the Oxford English Dictionary, since you don’t trust American ones.
You are wrong by definition in having it, as was the discussion here, that mankind is comprised of only one race. Check the definition and previous posts to see why. Or do you agree that mankind is comprised of more than one race?
On your latter question: Hispanic, in the United States, does not generally refer to being of pure Spanish (from Spain) origin. In most cases the term refers to having some Spanish origin, but mixed with Caribbean, Central American, or South American Indian.
Persons of entirely Spanish origin are considered “white” racially, but may be called Hispanic ethnically.
And going back to your mentioning of dark-skinned Sicilians: If you think they would be considered “black” in the United States, this would be about as accurate as many of your other ideas about the United States. You would be completely wrong if you think this, as you seem to above.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=150826 [/quote]
Well, North Dakota’s up.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Makavali wrote:
IMO the racism is there. It’s not nearly as widespread as some people would have you believe, but it’s there.
The major cause is sour grapes. Boohoo the Republicans lost after 8 years, boohoo change.
Couldn’t be that we strongly disagree with his policies and “reforms”…
Nahh…couldn’t be.
It took how long for people to decry him as the WORST thing to happen to the country?
Jesus Christ, he hasn’t been in power for a year and the REPUBLICANS are calling him the anti-Christ. No, I don’t agree with everything he has done, but he is far from the worst thing to happen to the USA.
So yes, sour grapes.[/quote]
I do not hate him, but I do not like his politics, his economics, his friends, or really anything about what he is doing. I thought he would get the troops out of Iraq, not give businesses bail out money, etc. He’s just not kept his word and the only thing I see him doing is spending money.
Every president will have nuthuggers and haters… that’s not going to change anytime soon
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m serious. I don’t hate the guy but he’s easy to despise. He’s such a weenie. A Chicago-ized version of Jimmah Carter.[/quote]
This is an interesting observation. I don’t hate him either, but we are learning - as we all thought we would - about his personality and his governing style once the harsh glare was put on him. And what we see is not encouraging.
Forget Right and Left. Forget liberal and conservative. Some of Obama’s worst traits that are turning folks off have nothing to do with a particular political point of view.
He is peevish and petty. While he campaigned as an “above it all” statesman interested in serious engagement on issues, he wastes more time on tit-for-tat childishness than any president in recent memory (hence all the comparisons to Nixon).
He has a shockingly obvious Glass Jaw - he is easily bruised and does not weather criticism at all. This fuels so much of his energy spent trying to use the office of the presidency to smite his enemies, real or perceived (see Fox News).