lictor616

um how about you read him again: in "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality". Ernst Mayr: "There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition. Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology."

ah yes snopp dizzlet doggy dog... another class act and prime example of black civility: http://www.politopics.com/uploaded_images/snoop-746477.jpg here posing with his two "ho's" on dog leashes... how dignified and how noble. I swear to god I don't know WHERE these rumors are started that blacks are brutal, thuggish lowbrow vulgarians.. I DO NOT KNOW...

beyoncé has stated more then once that she writes music for black people and doesn't understand why whites like her albums... to quote her verbatim: "I make black records. I write records like I speak, and I don't try to change my songs so everyone else likes them " could it be that Beyoncé is also anti white and racist? hmmm no doubt dancer likes her BECAUSE of this... yeah a TOTAL class act!

anyhoozle, I typed up "black people" in google images and my first hit was... http://baltimoresun.image2.trb.com/balnews...01/27582054.jpg not sure what this means either... also got this with "loud black people" http://becauseimblack.blogspot.com/2008/06...-when-they.html

hmmmmm I guess that's why house cats and pumas naturally mingle and freely copulate and produce offspring (who are all equal of course as the races of man) yes in real life nature is like a Walt Disney movie with lions and meerkats chilling together with wilderbeasts and hogs and insects... singing songs of peace and love... animals NEVER fight or discriminate ... that's just evil racists who do that...

it isn't... and we do... we use any of these terms: race, subrace, to sub-specie to cline to mtDNA group, breed etc...

thanks for the heads up, to quote again Ernt Mayr, "perhaps the greatest evolutionary scientist of the twentieth century", and what might might be called the Linnaeus of the Modern Synthesis {neo-Darwinism}, in his "Systematics and the Origin of Species" "Even though all of us are in principle equal before the law and ought to enjoy an equality of opportunity, we may be very different in our preferences and aptitudes. And if this is ignored, it may well lead to discord"

wow pretty weak mnided stuff ... again! brazen misrepresentatation of race: "Despite the disproof of race-asbiology, genetic variation continues to be used to explain racial differences. Such explanations require the acceptance of 2 disproved assumptions: that genetic variation explains variation in disease and that genetic variation explains racial variation in disease." race is "an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of that species and differing taxonomically from other populations of that species."

funny thing is that the author cited, Alan H Goodman, actually opines that the black race is a superior race and genetically better suited to a variety of survival conditions: he was referenced in the eminently disposable and crypto black supremacist lie-rag named "Africa Resource" knock YOURSELF out: http://www.africaresource.com/index.php?op...&Itemid=360

thank you once again for quoting a sociological source: the "Social Science Research Council", which might as well be called the Marxist Leninist "science" center... with such notable self confessed communists such as Paul Sweezy, and Craig Calhoun as prominent members... the SSRC is staffed with many political scientists and sociologists... but not many medical doctors, geneticists and almost no biologists of any repute. Again you tackle a SCIENTIFIC, BIOLOGICAL, MEDICAL phenomena with sociology and something as unscientific as political ideology... not wise. and about bidil... "Perhaps that's why members of the Congressional Black Caucus voiced support for the clinical trial. So did the Association of Black Cardiologists, which is helping recruit patients for the trial. B. Waine Kong, the organization's head officer, put it simply: "It is in the name of science that we participate." bidil is a racial drug because doctors rely on their ability to ascertain race to ascribe treatment... race is definitely a huge factor here... Saying it isn't IN SPITE of the evidence is just childish rejection ...

key sentence: "most medical geneticists and pharmacogeneticists concede that skin colour and other race-identifying features poorly correlate with the genetic variations" first off as previously cited liberman et al 2001.. not MOST geneticists... actually a minority say that.... but actually that's another brazen misrepresentation... YOU DON'T ASCERTAIN RACE OR CLINE BASED on SINGULAR OR INDIVIDUAL SO CALLED RACE IDENTIFYING FEATURES... skin color is not RACE ... it is a tiny ASPECT of race... a fraction of a genetic cluster... People with dark skin may be of very different races... the Tamils and Dravidians have black skin... yet straight hair... and short statures and share very little commonality with sub saharan africans... in fact they are close to Whites then Blacks... they may have straight noses, similar facial angles etc. again skin tone is not a correlative factor controlling for race... the entire article is mere confetti thrown in your face... it begins on an obvious misrepresentation of was race or cline is... and even dishonestly tells you that geneticists say this and that about it... beware of academic fraudulence. you seem to be a habitual victim of it... try to read SCIENTIFIC and MEDICAL journals instead of politically motivated sociological and ideological hit pieces.

yes of course, it's not like black women are at all generally seen as notoriously loud, obnoxious, impolite and hugely rude... no no no lets keep looking at the ground...

and I gave you mine... again I repeat... I spoke of neither superior or inferior... I spoke of DIFFERENT... You're implication that my pointing to racial differences (based in genetic differences... since different races have different genes) has no relationship with talk of superior or inferior beings... that's not even my point! Yet you keep insinuating it. You aren't even responding to my actual point. so what are we doing here?

top drawer class? can you imagine if she hadn't consoled Swift? That would have tarred her as well... Either way it was doubtlessly her expert public relations team that orchestrated this bit of hay to be munched by the american "booboisie".

The so called "conservative movement," i.e. the republicans in the US we are told "won" when the old spaghetti western actor Reagan was permitted to continue his acting in the White house to consummate the bankruptcy of the United States while taxing his bovine serfs to give every Israeli family in the "Holy Land" $6000 every year... And their successors (the Bushies) who meddled with the domestic affairs of every nation on the globe that has not yet become a howling wilderness of Communist savages, created a legal basis for afflicting on Americans the presence of 20 million illegal immigrants, i.e. for practical purposes: anthropoid drips from south america in preparation for "Integration" and "Amnesty", were said to be important to the economy because they did the work that "whites" wouldn't... when alas reality is that as the center of Immigration Studies calculates that the average Mexican immigrant alone will collect $55,200 more in government services during his lifetime than he will pay in taxes. (http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/toc.html) thus inflicting incalculable economical harm to the US. Back in the golden days of conservatism... late 40's 50's, many a patriotic organization and anti-Communists styled themselves, quite rationally then, "Conservatives", since their purpose was to conserve what was left of the American Republic.. The Conservatives were faced with a choice between two widely diverging paths. They could base their opposition to the Communism and a global plantation of misery on sound scientific grounds, recognizing scientific and above all biological reality and following the lead of such rational and learned men as Lothrop Stoddard, Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot and Madison Grant . Alternately, they could be taken in by the Bolsheviks, Liberal and crypto communist's pretense of atheism and decide to base their opposition to Communism on Jesus Jargon and an etiolated and begrimed religion called Christianity, following in the footsteps of Harold Lindsell, Millard Erickson, Bernhard Ramm, and other fugitives from reality.... being careful to hide from their feckless customers the proletarian communism implicit in primitive Christianity, and the silly Christan social gospels implicit in communism (i.e. "all men are created equal".. "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth".... etc) The Conservatives chose their route... and they have nowhere to go now... On their declining path they surrendered every ideal they had hoped to retain. Republicans are self-doomed, they are trapped in a cage they built themselves. They are now obsolete... they might as well just barricade themselves in their churches and read the opiate nonsense from their favorite boob book: the bible, even if so many of them never took the time to actually read it... They actually work against the interests of their largest party demographic: Heterosexual Whites.... The only way republicans can ever regain power is (like bush) to try to "out-democrat" the democrats! We need not pay attention to them anymore.... they are irrelevant to reality.

I mean that the state shouldn't have the right to regiment the way people interact with each other... I believe in complete freedom of association. I think that when left to themselves, people tend to "segregate" naturally... And I reject the notion that diversity (of the kind we're asked to celebrate) is a strength.

no the racial angle will be ignored or given errant lip service if at all... but it will not be used by the mass media to make the masses think... In all probability they'll excuse his acts because of "white racism"... or some other monstrous whopper.

i suppose it would be useless to point out that blacks were also enslaved by Muslims (earlier and for longer) and by other blacks... (actually the Europeans slave trade was the result of african tribal warfare... one tribe would conquer another capture slaves and sell their property to the highest bidder be they Europeans, Jews, Muslims or OTHER blacks)... but ... as I see it ONLY whites are held to account... I don't suppose you have any qualms about that right? of course not! oh and I might also add that ONLY EUROPEANS BANNED SLAVERY OUTRIGHT... and ONLY WESTERN NATIONS ACTIVELY FIGHT AGAINST THE PRACTICE... but I suppose this too counts for nothing! ohhh and what about how many Slavs (from east europe) were also used as slaves (1 million of them) by Turks? What about all those who were Arab salves after the fall of the roman empire? What about the slaves of Europeans by Europeans? The people in communist russia who were for all practical purposes abject SLAVES? meh! who cares right? they're only white! disgusting

Lost in your torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations, cuold you keep to the topic at HAND which was not and still isn't me personally.. whether I am label A B C D or what have you... take this for instance: I said: "Then there are BiDil and other race specific medicines ... which graves of course ignores outright (because it would obliterate his point).. " to which you replied: "No he did not ignore them. Like the substance in tumours of high blood pressure or cholesterol or sickle cell anemia genetic predisposition in blacks, none have anything to do with intelligence. " he spoke of no such ailment as sickle cell anemia (you really didn't read his book did you... and I said nothing of either race being more intelligent in this instance.. again that's not even my point: I'm asserting that different races have different genes... and that these have real effects and meanings IN REAL LIFE. I brought up the drug BiDil to illustrate how medicine often has to be RACE SPECIFIC in order to have effective treatment! How you jump to that to suggest that by saying that blacks have different ways of responding to heart disease treatment that i'm ACTUALLY saying blacks are inferior intellectually is simply evidence of your emotional unreason towards this subject... Look at how you lash out in temper tantrums and crazy assumptions! that races... are CLUSTERS OF GENES... my comments said nothing about the superiority or INFERIORITY of any race... In fact by you're logic, one could say that I'm an asian supremacist... since I routinely show data which puts asians at the apogee of IQ and intelligence... so you're assertion not only false but irrelevant.. SUPERIOR or INFERIOR... is not what's at issue here... it is whether we are different genetically as human clines (which EVEN YOUR sources would concede). nice try,

amazing... another black on white "transgression"... and everybody just ignores the racial angle... Even if we know Kanye has produced lyrics blathering about the superiority of the black race and how "da black man is god" and similar pish posh... Did it occur to anybody that such an undignified outburst was the result of Kanye being enraged that a white person won above a black? Again invert the races, imagine a country signer with a past of singing racially contraversial songs went out and snatched an award from a black performer to say that a white one deserved it better? Would the media would be so conspicuously silent about the racial angle then! ... the double standard persists i guess...

you should also read Bamshad's harsh words for affirmative action as well...

there hasn't been long period of separation for hmmm; if we're generous... ALL of 100 years... a mere moment in biological time... So i'm guessing you're implying that 100 years is enough to eliminate genetic drift and variation... You'd have to be implying that... or else you'd be saying that we're not all ONE race/cline/specie/ethnicity.... right?

you should really take the time to read what you propose: flip to page 5 of your source: Alu Polymorphisms SIDEBAR1 November 10, 2003 Image: NADIA STRASSER here you have a CHROMOSOME MAP of the the races. and on the subject of genetic equality it says : "In cases where membership in a geographically or culturally defined group has been correlated with health-related genetic traits, knowing something about an individual's group membership could be important for a physician." remember when I quoted author Sally Satel, saying that "ALL MEDICAL DOCTORS RACIALLY DISCRIMINATE"? Yeah sure... race is meaningless... unless you seek medical effective medical treatment... because not considering one's race can lead to MISDIAGNOSES. I mean how more obvious can you get... here you are quoting a PC excuse sheet that doesn't even debate my core points... and actually AGREES WITH THEM...

contains quote such as "Some investigators contend that"... "controversial", "This debate will be settled only by further research on the validity of race as a scientific variable." also they predictably ignore BiDil and many journals corrobarating the fact that group racial medicine is a viable field. Also the author: Michael Bamshad (who also writes sociological papers) once noted in Nature Genetics: that difference between individuals IN A RACE are LESS then differences BETWEEN RACES.: ”Frequently, it is erroneously contended that the high (85–95%) within group variance of human populations is inconsistent with the existence of races because differences between individuals are greater than differences between groups. Such low FST values are sometimes misinterpreted to mean that genetic differences between individuals within sub-Saharan Africa, Asia or Europe are typically greater than differences between individuals on different continents. A positive FST indicates, however that individuals from different populations are, on average, slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population” (p. 5-7)

meaningless! you're own link says NO SUCH thing! Why do you have to lie and use words such as "completely" when there is no such consensus! the grand majority of biologists agree that there are human races (Lieberman et. al. 2001). (http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Lieberman2001CA.pdf) "anthropology’s core concept of “race” had been rejected by 41%of physical anthropologists and 55% of cultural anthropologists" (majority of anthropologists agreed with the concept of race) today given the silly taboo and liberal apparatus which dominates universities (remember James Watson) "Clines provided a concrete alternative to thinking in terms of races. Identifiable traits were not confined to one “race” and were not uniform in frequency within a geographic area." LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings) "Clines One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines (Brace 1964). This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines" (Livingstone 1962: 279)." So you see the only difference is in terminology... the word "race" is so taboo everywhere, that scientists just went out and found a replacement. Clines is the new word... and means a much more complex taxonomy then race... Race is very broad...clines very specific but operates on the SAME taxonomic standards. Wikipedia also mentions "Lewontin's fallacy": (which you ignore) "I refer you again to Ernst Mayr’s definition of sub-species is the standard one accepted by scientists (the record is in the scientific literature, look in it and see how many scientists are using the nutty Lewontin “within-between” formula to determine sub-species of animals - about as many that are using “punctuated equilibrium” I would guess) and has been the standard since the initiation of the Darwinian New Synthesis. Mayr has publicly addressed the misinformation that evolutionary biologists believe there aren’t human races:" "There is a widespread feeling that the word race indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as there are no human races. Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals . . . the geographic races of the human races established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact."