Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Define White

1567810

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hardly. The fact that you can see them for what they are - racists - shows that nothing need be done. Their views have nothing to do with science just bigotry pure and simple - they just try to give it a sugar coating of misinformation to make it sound palatable.

    We used to do the same to get medicine downs kids necks.

    I haven't seen them make any explicitly "racist" statements, although its probable that they are racist. But why does that mean nothing has to be done?

    The opposite is the case. If "racists" make cases based on science (or pseudo science) which advocate discrimination, all the more effort needs to be made to ensure their argument is totally shot down. If you just sarcastically dismiss them as "racists" and leave it at that, anybody who is undecided on the matter is more than likely to agree with them, not you. They'll see you as the prejudiced party who holds unjustified opinions, not them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I haven't seen them make any explicitly "racist" statements, although its probable that they are racist. But why does that mean nothing has to be done?

    It's a case of reading between the lines of what they say - we've seen a few around here and it never takes long to twig them for the scum which they are. The racist parties and promoters are getting wiser to the concept of spin. Rather than just come out with they bigotry they try to justify their hatred with science or lies. It's just a simple fact of how these people work.

    That you could see their racist undertones is proof that it tends not to work.
    The opposite is the case. If "racists" make cases based on science (or pseudo science) which advocate discrimination, all the more effort needs to be made to ensure their argument is totally shot down. If you just sarcastically dismiss them as "racists" and leave it at that, anybody who is undecided on the matter is more than likely to agree with them, not you. They'll see you as the prejudiced party who holds unjustified opinions, not them.

    Anyone new, certainly.

    Look at their sources, look at the message they are trying to get across. there is no science - in the tru sense - which backs up their arguments any more than the fact that Bill Gates wearing glassess means that people with poor eyesight are genetically predisposed to be rich.

    You will also note the things which haven't been said in this thread by the racists. The number of evaded questions, the instant accusational approach when questioned...

    Now, if people cannot see that for themselves then a detailed pulling apart of a "scientific" argument won't help either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a case of reading between the lines of what they say - we've seen a few around here and it never takes long to twig them for the scum which they are. The racist parties and promoters are getting wiser to the concept of spin. Rather than just come out with they bigotry they try to justify their hatred with science or lies. It's just a simple fact of how these people work.

    I agree to some extent with your analysis of racist argumentation/methods. However, it isn't the point.

    In terms of "objective truth" whats the difference between the "bigotry" of a predisposed racist and the "bigotry" of a presidposed anti-racist? The point is that racism is a plausible belief system/worldview. It perfectly possible that objective science could completely exonerate a racist perspective. Therefore simply identifying someone as "racist" doesn't mean you win the argument or win over anybody who is following the debate. Sure, you might win over some people who are predisposed to dislike and/or dismiss racists, but you don't win over anybody who is trying to approach the matter scientifically or objectively. In fact, quite the opposite; those people are likely to assume that the "anti-racist" argument is weaker and therefore its advocates have to resort to simple denunciations of their opponents, rather than actually tackle their arguments. Thats what breeds more racists.
    That you could see their racist undertones is proof that it tends not to work.

    Well, firstly, I've been around long enough and followed enough arguments on this issue (on this forum and others) to be able to recognise such arguments and motivations. The "target audience" is not likely to be in such a position. Even if they are, it doesn't mean that their argument is inherently dismissable, as...

    Secondly, the potential fact that they are "racist" is largely irrelevant to the debate. So what if they are? As I said, racism is a plausible worldview/perspective and could be supported by scientific evidence. Therefore, if you want to defeat the argument, reply in an appropriately scientific/objective manner. Trying to shout them down will convince impartial observers that you're in the wrong, all you're going to achieve is a temporary victory over people who are presidposed to dislike/disagree with racists anyway.
    Look at their sources, look at the message they are trying to get across. there is no science - in the tru sense - which backs up their arguments any more than the fact that Bill Gates wearing glassess means that people with poor eyesight are genetically predisposed to be rich.

    You will also note the things which haven't been said in this thread by the racists. The number of evaded questions, the instant accusational approach when questioned...

    If their argument is so flawed, invalidate it and put an end to it. Then you can denounce them as unjustified racists.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I have to agree with seeker here; the "racists" have won this argument due to their opposition's dismissive attitude and refusal to engage in the debate.

    Real shame.

    the racists in this argument have avoided every single decent argument put to them i have asked like 6 questions or something to test the scientific validity of their arguments and i have yet to get a reply to my knowledge - that answers the fact they are using stupid argumentsto prove their point

    they're racists, they aren't stupid and they know good way of arguing their views but their arguments still are nonetheless pointless as they are yet to show any real difference between 'races' than what can be more explained by person to person differences
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the racists in this argument have avoided every single decent argument put to them i have asked like 6 questions or something to test the scientific validity of their arguments and i have yet to get a reply to my knowledge - that answers the fact they are using stupid argumentsto prove their point

    they're racists, they aren't stupid and they know good way of arguing their views but their arguments still are nonetheless pointless as they are yet to show any real difference between 'races' than what can be more explained by person to person differences

    Ok, so I got your last question, which is:
    all i ask of barkmoss is that he gives me a link to show there is signifigant biological difference between 'races' that can be applied 100% of the time on everyone, if not there is no point discriminating, and if there is a scale for darkness

    Now that isn't countering anything, its a preposterous request. You'd be extremely hard pressed to find any theory that could be applied 100% of the time on everyone. And why would there be no point in discriminating if not? Everybody uses discrimination daily in order to make decisions, none of it is based on a theory or descriptive paradigm that "can be applied 100% of the time on everyone."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    XXXX wrote: »
    Similar goes to you King of Glasgow - do you think something unnatural is occuring whereby the in-control native peoples of Britain work to make Jews, Indians, Lebanese, east Asians and other minorities better educated and more financially renumerated for their work than the CRE's White British, and also to make the Black British less so - but not the Black African!
    What is it you're actually asking here?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A few of the last posts have referred to "racists" ?

    Could those posters be more specific and name names ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta,

    Your question may not be specifically for me, but I`d suggest that you re-read the quote you offered.

    I suspect you are seeing what you WANT to see rather than what has actually has been written and asked.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a case of reading between the lines of what they say - we've seen a few around here and it never takes long to twig them for the scum which they are. The racist parties and promoters are getting wiser to the concept of spin. Rather than just come out with they bigotry they try to justify their hatred with science or lies. It's just a simple fact of how these people work.

    That you could see their racist undertones is proof that it tends not to work.



    Anyone new, certainly.

    Look at their sources, look at the message they are trying to get across. there is no science - in the tru sense - which backs up their arguments any more than the fact that Bill Gates wearing glassess means that people with poor eyesight are genetically predisposed to be rich.

    You will also note the things which haven't been said in this thread by the racists. The number of evaded questions, the instant accusational approach when questioned...

    Now, if people cannot see that for themselves then a detailed pulling apart of a "scientific" argument won't help either.

    MoK,

    I may have "seen" things wrong, but if your post above refers to what XXXX has said in this thread may I be so bold as to suggest you read
    WHAT XXXX HAS ACTUALLY POSTED



    (My conclusions have resulted from that very suggestion but may have been biased by this early line from XXXX
    Any taxonomy is ultimately a convenient but artificial way to parcel up the constantly evolving continuum of the genes of all life.
    ;) )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    In terms of "objective truth" whats the difference between the "bigotry" of a predisposed racist and the "bigotry" of a presidposed anti-racist? The point is that racism is a plausible belief system/worldview. It perfectly possible that objective science could completely exonerate a racist perspective. Therefore simply identifying someone as "racist" doesn't mean you win the argument or win over anybody who is following the debate. Sure, you might win over some people who are predisposed to dislike and/or dismiss racists, but you don't win over anybody who is trying to approach the matter scientifically or objectively. In fact, quite the opposite; those people are likely to assume that the "anti-racist" argument is weaker and therefore its advocates have to resort to simple denunciations of their opponents, rather than actually tackle their arguments. Thats what breeds more racists.
    Well done, that man!

    I'm as soggy a liberal as the next man, especially if the next man is Marcus Brigstocke, but I can still see that relying on a general assumption that arguments for racism, however scientific they may appear superficially, can simply be derided and dismissed out of hand, puts one at risk of looking horribly cliquey. That said, what we have here is the problem the BNP presents to the general public in microcosm; reject them totally, and make them seem heroically persecuted, or engage them, and lend them a sheen of respectability. It may not a be a coincidence that the local elections are about to take place.

    The only thing worth asking of these pseudo plausible types, is: what's your point? What significance does your argument have for society? I believe these questions have been asked, amid all the vitriol, and evaded. Worth plugging away at it, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    XXXX wrote: »
    This is simply not the case Uncle Joe - you are falling into the Blagsterist fallacy of believing what dishonest scientists say and which gets trumpeted by a lay media selected for its easy submission to political orthodoxy.
    Well, hush ma mouth...
    Definitions of race and its synonyms current to different scientific disciplines according to the Oxford University's authoritative Reference range of academic dictionaries:

    Race 1. (in biology) A category used in the classification of organisms that consists of a group of individuals within a species that are geographically, ecologically, physiologically, or chromosomally distinct from other members of the species. The term is frequently used in the same sense as subspecies. Physiological races, for example, are identical in appearance but differ in function. They include strains of fungi adapted to infect different varieties of the same crop species.

    2. (in anthropology) A distinct human type possessing several characteristics that are genetically inherited. The major races are Mongoloid, Caucasian, Negroid, and Australoid.

    Source: "race" A Dictionary of Biology. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t6.e3730

    Subspecies A group of individuals within a species that breed more freely among themselves than with other members of the species and resemble each other in more characteristics. Reproductive isolation of a subspecies may become so extreme that a new species is formed (see speciation). Subspecies are sometimes given a third Latin name, e.g. the mountain gorilla, Gorilla gorilla beringei.

    Source: "subspecies" A Dictionary of Biology. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t6.e4270

    Variety: A category used in the classification of plants and animals below the species level. A variety consists of a group of individuals that differ distinctly from but can interbreed with other varieties of the same species. The characteristics of a variety are genetically inherited. Examples of varieties include breeds of domestic animals and human races. See also cultivar. Compare subspecies.

    Source: "variety" A Dictionary of Biology. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t6.e4628

    Race: An interbreeding group of individuals all of whom are genetically distinct from the members of other such groups of the same species. Usually these groups are geographically isolated from one another, so there are barriers to gene flow. Examples are island races of birds and mammals, such as the Skomer vole and the St Kilda wren. See subspecies.

    Source: "race" A Dictionary of Zoology. Ed. Michael Allaby. Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t8.e7338

    Subspecies: Technically, a race of a species that is allocated a Latin name. The number of races recognized within a species and the allocation of names to them is somewhat arbitrary. Systematic and phenotypic variations do occur within species, but there are no clear rules for identifying them as races or subspecies except that they must be: (a) geographically distinct; (b) populations, not merely morphospecies; and (c) different to some degree from other geographic populations .

    Source: "subspecies" A Dictionary of Zoology. Ed. Michael Allaby. Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t8.e8533

    Race: a phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic and gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such groups. The number of racial groups that one wishes to recognize within a species is usually arbitrary but suitable for the purposes under investigation. See ecotype, subspecies.

    Source: "race" A Dictionary of Genetics. Robert C. King, William D. Stansfield, and Pamela K. Mulligan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t224.e5354


    Subspecies: 1. a taxonomically recognized subdivision of a species. 2. geographically and/or ecologically defined subdivisions of a species with distinctive characteristics. See race.

    Source: "subspecies" A Dictionary of Genetics. Robert C. King, William D. Stansfield, and Pamela K. Mulligan. Oxford University Press, 2007. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t224.e6247


    variety n.: The quality or condition of being diversified, or a collection of unlike things. In biology, a taxonomic group into which a species is divided, containing organisms that are genetically differentiable from other members of the same species by the relative frequencies of their polymorphic genes . Also called a microspecies, race , or subspecies. [From Latin varietas variety, from varius various]

    Source: "variety n." A Dictionary of Psychology. Andrew M. Colman. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t87.e8737


    subspecies n.: In biology, a taxonomic group into which a species is divided, containing organisms that are genetically differentiable from other members of the same species by the relative frequencies of their polymorphic genes. Also called a microspecies, race, or variety.

    Source: "subspecies n." A Dictionary of Psychology. Andrew M. Colman. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Dept of Continuing Education. 26 April 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t87.e8100
    A lot of talk there of 'subspecies' and far less of 'variations', when the latter is more accurate and less potentially offensive. When all humans, however much they may vary in appearance, can produce offspring successfully, the idea of subgroups looks a little meaningless. I'll give you one definition, from Wikipedia (maybe I've just fallen into a Blagsterist fallacy, but it makes sense to me):
    The term race describes populations or groups of people distinguished by different sets of characteristics, and beliefs about common ancestry.[1] The most widely used human racial categories are based on visible traits (especially skin color, facial features and hair texture), and self-identification.[1]

    Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial, for scientific reasons as well as because of their impact on social identity and identity politics. Many scientists contend that while the features on which a racial categorizations are made may be based on genetic factors, dividing persons into groups based on selected hereditary features remains a social concept.[2]

    Since the 1940s, some evolutionary scientists have rejected the view of race according to which any number of finite lists of essential characteristics could be used to determine a like number of races. For example, the convention of categorizing the human population based on human skin colors has been used, but hair colors, eye colors, nose sizes, lip sizes, and heights have not. The general opinion among the vast majority of scientists is to reject the notion that common race definitions, or any race definitions pertaining to humans, have any taxonomic rigour and validity.[3] Mainstream scientists have thus argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races observed vary according to the culture examined. They further maintain that "race" as such is best understood as a social construct, and they prefer to conceptualize and analyze human genotypic and phenotypic variation in terms of populations and clines instead.

    Other scientists however, have argued that this position is motivated more by political than scientific reasons. [4] Still others argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful, that these categories correspond to clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data, and that this statistical correspondence, not necessarily a proven cause and effect, implies that genetic factors somehow contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation among groups.
    XXXX wrote: »
    I have never seen a single definition of 'race' in its scientific sense (rather than its secular social or poetic meanings) which would prevent our assigning the major human groups to different races – and no-one has produced one in this thread. According to ALL the definitions above, humans would qualify for subdivision in precisely the same way as any other species might.
    So is there a Doberman race, or a Minke race? Humans all trace their ancestry back to the same bipedal primates. We never evolved to the point of being sexually incompatable. Certainly, being geographically isolated led to the development of different characteristics, and early explorers may have believed there were discovering creatures distinct from the 'human race'. Other races, by definition. We know they were mistaken now. No-one speaks of races of dogs, and only lingering 'racism' leads some of us to think of Africans or Chinese as 'other'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i once described myself as a peachy coloured youth ..

    i always say black and white because its easier than getting all technical. some of my white friends are shocked when i say black but my black friends dont seem to mind.

    sometimes i might sound a bit tackless or offensive but i dont mean to be thats just how i am, i think when you have been brought up with people from different race or colour to you or whatever you accept it and dont notice it and use a shared terminology e.g. black/white and its not offensive but to some of my more 'sheltered' friends they think black if offensive so they use the word 'coloured' which i think is harsh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote: »
    I have to agree with seeker here; the "racists" have won this argument due to their opposition's dismissive attitude and refusal to engage in the debate.

    Real shame.
    I hope XXXX hasn't vanished on the strength that he can now tell his buddies he 'won' the debate. Not all of the opposition have been dismissive...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Someone close this fucking thread NOW!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Well, hush ma mouth...

    A lot of talk there of 'subspecies' and far less of 'variations', when the latter is more accurate and less potentially offensive. When all humans, however much they may vary in appearance, can produce offspring successfully, the idea of subgroups looks a little meaningless.

    No-one is denying that a sub-group/sub-species can't interbreed with another; if it couldn't, it wouldn't be sub-group in the first place - it would be an altogether different species!
    So is there a Doberman race, or a Minke race? Humans all trace their ancestry back to the same bipedal primates. We never evolved to the point of being sexually incompatable. Certainly, being geographically isolated led to the development of different characteristics, and early explorers may have believed there were discovering creatures distinct from the 'human race'. Other races, by definition

    We know they were mistaken now. No-one speaks of races of dogs, and only lingering 'racism' leads some of us to think of Africans or Chinese as 'other'.

    Of course there is a Doberman race, just as there is a Poodle race, a Dachshund race and so on. Likewise there are different races of foxes, birds, plants etc.

    The only difference is that people tend to use the term 'breed' instead of 'race' (at least nowadays).

    This is all basic biology. Didn't you get taught this in school :confused:

    Btw, does "lingering racism" also lead the dog-breeder to consider his Dobermans as 'other' to his Poodles? 'Coz that's your logic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    No-one is denying that a sub-group/sub-species can't interbreed with another; if it couldn't, it wouldn't be sub-group in the first place - it would be an altogether different species!
    I don't know what the above has to do with my post. I didn't say that subgroups/subspecies couldn't interbreed. I said that between humans, the terms implied degrees of differences that didn't exist.
    Of course there is a Doberman race, just as there is a Poodle race, a Dachshund race and so on. Likewise there are different races of foxes, birds, plants etc.

    The only difference is that people tend to use the term 'breed' instead of 'race' (at least nowadays).
    Which is the crucial difference, and my point. Dogs are 'bred' by humans to vary. No scientist would refer to 'races' of dogs.
    This is all basic biology. Didn't you get taught this in school :confused:

    Btw, does "lingering racism" also lead the dog-breeder to consider his Dobermans as 'other' to his Poodles? 'Coz that's your logic.
    I don't know why you need to be so snippy. And of course the dog-breeder would consider his Doberman's as 'other' to his Poodles. At least, if the bitches were in heat. We're not supposed to have the same pre-occupation with the 'purity of the breed'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh no! It's...




    The Thread That Will Not Die!


    woman_screaming.gif
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »

    Which is the crucial difference, and my point. Dogs are 'bred' by humans to vary. No scientist would refer to 'races' of dogs.

    Artificial or natural selection doesn't matter. The end product is still a distinct breed.

    As for no scientist referring to 'races' of dog...Ask a biologist if a breed of animal - artificial or naturally selected - can be referred to a race and the answer will be yes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote: »
    Artificial or natural selection doesn't matter. The end product is still a distinct breed.
    Of course it matters. There is no 'end product' with natural selection, just what works best in the current environment, whereas breeders, by definition, are trying to breed a specific... breed.
    As for no scientist referring to 'races' of dog...Ask a biologist if a breed of animal - artificial or naturally selected - can be referred to a race and the answer will be yes.
    You seem to think that the onus is on me to find a scientist who will agree with you. Are you supporting XXX's views? Do you think that dark-skinned Africans, say, and pale-skinned Europeans are separate races?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Are you supporting XXX's views? Do you think that dark-skinned Africans, say, and pale-skinned Europeans are separate races?

    XXXX`s views ? ?

    Far be it from me to assume that you DON`T have a closer relationship with XXXX than what you have read on this board, but if you do could you make that clear ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't let the empty jug distract you from responding, Spliffie. I never do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Don't let the empty jug distract you from responding, Spliffie. I never do.


    WHEN MARTIN (heidegger) MET ZEN ?

    "When we fill the jug, the pouring that fills it flows into the empty jug. The emptiness, the void, is what does the vessel's holding. The empty space, this nothing of the jug, is what the jug is as the holding vessel.The vessel's thingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the void that holds."


    p.s. "NEVER" seems like a long time to me
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Oh no! It's...




    The Thread That Will Not Die!


    woman_screaming.gif

    Lol, yeah. I can see this thread going on forever... why isn't it locked? It'll turn up in a few months again I bet too.

    God bless google.

    Also this:
    howdoishotweb.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    Lol, yeah. I can see this thread going on forever... why isn't it locked?
    It doesn't have to. Spliffie hasn't apparently posted anything since his last reply on this thread, and I'm only interested in why he is so interested in disagreeing with me. If anyone else chooses to contribute, they'll be judged according to the worth of their input.

    The issue of defining ethnicity is not so esoteric or untopical that it would kill anyone to have this thread hang around, anyway, unless some poster/s tried to disrupt it. Why sweat it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah it's certainly not in anyway an old thread, or a dead thread so can't see why we'd close it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Whites are generally considered Caucasian i.e. Caucasian relates to a broad division of people origonating from and covering Europe and western Asia.

    I dunno... My old flatmate was Latina, so she was more beige than white... But then I am more pink than white... *shrug*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I dunno... My old flatmate was Latina, so she was more beige than white... But then I am more pink than white... *shrug*

    "White" doesn't refer to colour of skin, it was original used to describe people of lighter skin than those of African descent. The only white people I see are albinos and even they are not totally white.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    "White" doesn't refer to colour of skin, it was original used to describe people of lighter skin than those of African descent. The only white people I see are albinos and even they are not totally white.
    And if there were really any black people, you'd only be able to see their outline and not shape! :D
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    And if there were really any black people, you'd only be able to see their outline and not shape! :D

    :lol:

    Yeah. It's just this thread is going in circles and stuff, and geting nowhere. Seeker doesn't help. :rolleyes: Thias issue is not going to get resolved. It can't be due to the circular nature of many arguments about race.

    Meh. I guess it'll get closed if it gets dragged up alot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Of course it matters. There is no 'end product' with natural selection, just what works best in the current environment, whereas breeders, by definition, are trying to breed a specific... breed.

    The 'end product' is genetic stabilisation.
    You seem to think that the onus is on me to find a scientist who will agree with you.

    Errr...no. I'm suggesting you ask someone who's properly qualified to clear up your confusion over the fundamentals of biology.

    Are you supporting XXX's views? Do you think that dark-skinned Africans, say, and pale-skinned Europeans are separate races?

    I don't know what his views are. I do agree with his statement of scientific fact - that race exists - just as I'd agree with someone who is arguing that the Earth is round.
    It doesn't have to. Spliffie hasn't apparently posted anything since his last reply on this thread, and I'm only interested in why he is so interested in disagreeing with me. If anyone else chooses to contribute, they'll be judged according to the worth of their input.

    I'm disagreeing with you because you're treating long-established biological fact as fallacy and making absolutely false claims (such as that 'race' cannot be applied to sub-species and breeds of animal and plant).
Sign In or Register to comment.