| | Would you have a relationship outside your race?Page 4 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) | ^^^
I guessed by your big words that you only had a high school education. What people won't do to compensate lol
People with uni degrees, who are doctors, lawyers and accountants etc....don't need big words to impress people.
You need to study up on effective communication techniques. Google it. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 12:14:29 AM |
it's an alleged personal anecdote or made up apocryphal story designed to confirm a pre-existing bias
I think that was what the bard was getting at; when convinced of something, evidence that supports it is emphasised in our brains while evidence that refutes it is down-played or ignored. Our subjective impressions will often be wide of the mark unless deliberate effort is made to objectively analyse the data. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 12:20:39 AM | Fellas...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I'd rather ask a five year old to butter a piece of bread for me than an academic.
Nice to see you again ginger. These forums are getting very quiet. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 12:40:57 AM |
I guessed by your big words that you only had a high school education. What people won't do to compensate lol
lol is right. None of the 'big' words I used were as 'big' as the words of yours I quoted. So by your own criteria, if someone is 'compensating' for something - it must be you hey?
People with uni degrees, who are doctors, lawyers and accountants etc....don't need big words to impress people.
You need to study up on effective communication techniques. Google it.
People who can argue effectively have no need to resort to limp ad hominems.
You need to study up on how to argue rationally. I Googled a page to start you off - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
I'd rather ask a five year old to butter a piece of bread for me than an academic.
Huh? | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 12:57:12 AM | ^^^^^^^^
This is just getting better and better. You referenced Wikipedia....OMG ...roll on the floor laughing. That was a big no no at uni, for the obvious reasons...but its okay, you have no reason to know that.
Huh?
I didn't think you'd get it. But it's okay...ginger will come on soon and explain it to you using smaller words. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 1:05:31 AM | Have we agreed a definition of 'race' yet? I can't really see how we can answer the question otherwise.
None of the 'big' words I used were as 'big' as the words of yours I quoted
If I don't use big words as often as I can, I'll forget them and then it's all down hill from there... might as well go watch big brother re-runs.
People who can argue effectively have no need to resort to limp ad hominems.
I did wonder what was the erectile dysfunction miracle cure alluded to in various spam emails. Is there anything arguing can't do?!
I'd rather ask a five year old to butter a piece of bread for me than an academic.
Hang on, shouldn't we find out what 'race' these prospective bread butterers identify as before choosing which one to take to the next level? | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 1:54:29 AM |
This is just getting better and better.
Indeed. Though some might say worse and worse.
You referenced Wikipedia....OMG ...roll on the floor laughing. That was a big no no at uni, for the obvious reasons...but its okay, you have no reason to know that.
Whether I know, or not, is irrelevant since posts in the forum aren't academic papers and POF isn't a university. What you are doing, still, is using vague ad hominems to avoid the point while slipping in, perhaps compensatory, references to your alleged 'education'.
I'd rather ask a five year old to butter a piece of bread for me than an academic. Huh? I didn't think you'd get it. But it's okay...ginger will come on soon and explain it to you using smaller words.
You made the statement. You explain it.
It's a simple concept.
Have we agreed a definition of 'race' yet? I can't really see how we can answer the question otherwise.
I agree. It's for those who make the claim to support it with evidence, and the first step is defining what the claim actually is.
So if 'races' of homo sapiens allegedly exist that one might, or might not, want to 'relate' to - what defines this alleged 'racial' difference?
Are we talking about folk taxonomy, social construct, or just plain old bigotry? Cultural difference? Insularity? Xenophobia? Or perhaps just rigid intolerance combined with a generalised tendency toward irrational responses to any question? | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 2:34:26 AM | Well in the absence of the OP, hopefully GuessWhat can help us with a definition of race, since you are the origin of the current cigar claims.
In England (and therefore in our Australia's imported culture), it was only after 1600 that Liz the first suddenly decided that multiculturalism was bad. Previously England was largely egalitarian.
The queen is discontented at the great numbers of 'negars and blackamoores' which are crept into the realm since the troubles between her Highness and the King of Spain, and are fostered here to the annoyance of her own people.
Sir William Cecil, Chief Advisor to Liz mk1
Shortly thereafter pressure was applied to merchant navies to repatriate them to Barbary (North Africa). Perhaps this period is the origin of the modern use of the term 'race' in British/Australian culture as a differentiation between the 'native' English and the incoming African refugees?
But if that were so then wouldn't a continental European also be a different race to the English? This is the confusing part, because it doesn't seem to work like that. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 3:05:38 AM |
wouldn't a continental European also be a different race to the English?
is funny was researching for my own amusement about the origns of our language "english"
turns out west germans kicked it all off..has had more changes than the bibles since then...
I know you were referring to the land mass england but still had to share it with ya ginge..kinda interesting
didn't think you could get more "english" than the language "english" but foooeee | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 3:22:05 AM |
turns out west germans kicked it all off..has had more changes than the bibles since then...
Hmm... so what about Russians? Are they a different race to the English? I may be wrong but I can't recall Russia and England ever being part of an empire. Yet under the romans England and North Africa were.
I'm still confused! | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 3:34:21 AM | nah ginge my post has nought to do with yours, sorry mate, I did include ' i knew you were talking about the land mass when u mentioning england and europe.
what you reminded me was simply , I thought there would be nothing more english apart from than the language named after the people and the land mass. if someone had asked me a few weeks ago where english originated from it would be a no brainer.. only added it as slightly interesting tit bit..
for me its like finding out the klu klux klan came from Uganda | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 3:42:29 AM | the origns of our language "english" turns out west germans kicked it all off..
Im so confused now.....am I English or German??....need to know so I can gauge whether to continue shaving or not!
I reckon, simple as it may seem.....lots of people simply judge race on skin colour. :-). | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 3:50:44 AM | I think most of our words are originally derived from Latin and Greek. According to the fist website google led me to, these are some examples of words in English of Arabic origin: Coffee, Mirror, Algebra, Amber, Crimson, Elixir, Carat, Cotton, Sherbet, Tahini, Chipher, Zero, Mask, Mascara, Alcohol, Hazard, Caliber, Jar, Chemistry, Magazine.
So if word origins have anything to do with race, then I'm even more confused!  | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 4:09:20 AM |
In England (and therefore in our Australia's imported culture), it was only after 1600 that Liz the first suddenly decided that multiculturalism was bad. Previously England was largely egalitarian.
According to an online etymological dictionary that was about the time the first use of the word in its modern sense was recorded.
About 400 years ago - which was not so coincidentally when the Europeans were madly trying to colonise the entire world to secure trade and resource riches.
race (n) "people of common descent," c.1500, from M.Fr. razza "race, breed, lineage," possibly from It. razza, of unknown origin (cf. Sp., Port. raza). Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c.1500), and "generation" (c.1560). Meaning "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" is from c.1600. Modern meaning of "one of the great divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from 1774 (though even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted classification of these).
Klein suggests these derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (cf. Heb. rosh). O.E. þeode meant both "race" and "language;" as a verb, geþeodan, it meant "to unite, to join."
Race-riot attested from 1889, Amer.Eng.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=r&allowed_in_frame=0
The obvious, and often made, deduction is that the conquering colonists needed to de-humanise the conquered to justify the treatment they dealt out - hence they labeled them 'inferior races' and classed them, in some cases, as sub-human. One sees the same ideas hinted at even today.
...is funny was researching for my own amusement about the origns of our language "english"
turns out west germans kicked it all off..has had more changes than the bibles since then...
In a strange way, this ^^^ is on topic, because there's another layer underneath the connection between German and English. Superficially the two languages are not the same, else we'd be able to understand someone speaking German, yet they actually are quite similar - there are very very very many words that are very very obviously derived from the same root.
Both languages (and others - including Sanskrit) are thought to descend from an ancient language spoken in the area we now call the 'Middle East', hence why they are often collectively labeled Indo-Germanic or Indo-European languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
So, whether it's 'race' or language, one can choose to see differences... or one can see similarities and connections. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 4:55:33 AM | So if the origins of the concept of 'race' to have been invented to justify European colonialism and has no basis in fact, why is the word still used when other words such as ethnicity, culture or skin colour are more appropriate?
Looking at that Indo-European wikipedia link I can see why language wasn't used as a basis for deciding what is a 'race'. It gives the wrong answers: we'd be the same 'race' as Afghans and Mexicans, but different to Finns and Israelis! | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 5:02:05 AM | Leans on the bar , raises a glass to you lot " I lovesh shu guyyyysssss ! ....hic! "
"fer crying out loud itsh a race now ... schtopp picking on the cripples fellash.... "
( Sorry you were all being far too acedemic and cleverish :) ) | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 5:28:56 AM |
( Sorry you were all being far too acedemic and cleverish :) )
Actually they weren't. They are referrencing wikipedia and using big words. It's quite sad to watch.
It's time Iran got nuclear capable. I think some countries in that region would make good car parks. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 5:58:07 AM |
So if the origins of the concept of 'race' to have been invented to justify European colonialism and has no basis in fact, why is the word still used when other words such as ethnicity, culture or skin colour are more appropriate?
It's a good question, and any answer is bound to be speculative. The same question might be asked regarding other ideas that have been shown to have no basis in fact, but that quite large groups continue to espouse. ID/creationism springs to mind as an example, despite that the concept was comprehensively demolished by Darwin over 200 years ago. Likewise the general idea that humans (and the Earth) are 'special' in relation to the universe, despite that Copernicus showed the solar system was in fact heliocentric around 450 years ago and Galileo finished off the idea of an anthropocentric universe shortly thereafter.
It's not a particularly novel observation that (some/many) people cling to discredited ideas and one suspects there are common threads that connect the reasons they do so, despite that the ideas themselves seem unrelated.
They are referrencing wikipedia and using big words. It's quite sad to watch.
Only for the inarticulate melancholics. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 7:21:04 AM |
They are referrencing wikipedia and using big words. It's quite sad to watch. Only for the inarticulate melancholics.
...but not even inarticulate melancholics with wikipediaphobia would claim that such discussion of ongoing scientific research is invalid or detrimental, when to make such a claim without giving detailed logic and instruction on more appropriate material and methods would be hypocritical in the extreme...
The recent National Human Genome Research Institute's "Vision for the Future of Genomics Research" outlined a bold agenda for the future, including a number of compelling research opportunities. The meeting at Howard University underscored the importance of additional research in certain crucial areas:
(i) Without discounting self-identified race or ethnicity as a variable correlated with health, we must strive to move beyond these weak surrogate relationships and get to the root causes of health and disease, be they genetic, environmental or both.
(ii) To determine accurate risk factors for disease, we need to carry out well-designed, large-scale studies in multiple populations. Such studies must be equally rigorous in their collection of genetic and environmental data. If only genetic factors are considered, only genetic factors will be discovered.
(iii) To validate quantitative conclusions about genes, environment and their interactions in health and disease for multiple groups, long-term, longitudinal prospective cohort studies, as well as carefully designed case-control studies, will be needed.
(iv) We must continue to support efforts to define the nature of human variation across the world, focused primarily on medical goals. The International Human Haplotype Map Project will open a new window into human variation and generate a powerful tool for discovering disease associations, but the project will provide a resource, not all of the answers.
(v) We need more anthropological, sociological and psychological research into how individuals and cultures conceive and internalize concepts of race and ethnicity.
(vi) We must assess how the scientific community uses the concepts of race and ethnicity and attempt to remedy situations in which the use of such concepts is misleading or counterproductive.
(vii) We need to formulate clear, scientifically accurate messages to educate researchers, health-care professionals and the general public on the connections among race, ethnicity, genetics and health.
Francis S Collins, Nature Genetics 36, S13 - S15 (2004) | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 3:15:41 PM | Am I mistaken or is there some very polite male verbal b#tch slapping going on? LOL.. The topic seems to have strayed a little.
I still stand by what I said previously and take each person for who they are on an individual basis, then taking into consideration their religious or cultural beliefs. It is very easy to make assumptions by appearance alone and it is the differences that make people interesting. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 4:55:08 PM |
Perhaps huge cultural, political, or religious, differences might be problematic depending on the motivation of the two people concerned.
But it's not possible to "have a relationship outside your race", since there is only one
A contradiction here really.Anyone would have a relationship outside their race if the attraction is there, so don't worry about all the shite this thread has produced. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 5:16:19 PM |
The topic seems to have strayed a little.
Before answering the question: "Would you have a relationship outside your race?" we need to know "What is your race". It turns out there is technically no such thing, so the word has different meaning to different people. If what is meant is "Would you have a relationship outside your culture" or "Would you have a relationship outside your skin colour" or "Would you have a relationship outside your lingual family" the answer could differ each time.
don't worry about all the shite this thread has produced.
Who's worried? If you'd rather answer the question without understanding it, go right ahead. Just don't expect everyone else to be so hasty. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 5:31:04 PM | | Let me make it a little bit simpler so you can understand. Question="Would you have a relationship outside your race?". My answer=Yes. There done, I don't need to post 10 times to express myself.Perhaps you should brush up on your communication skills. | |
|
| Would you have a relationship outside your race?
Posted: 7/21/2012 5:53:06 PM |
Let me make it a little bit simpler so you can understand. Question="Would you have a relationship outside your race?". My answer=Yes.
Well done. Now if you don't want to discuss it further like some of us, that is fine - you don't have to. It was the shite comment that was offensive, not your answer.
There done, I don't need to post 10 times to express myself.
Let me make it simple for you: it's called a discussion, and by replying you have deigned to enter into one. If you and others are interested enough in the topic you might make it to 10, in which case you obviously must be a poor communicator! | |
|
| |
Home
login 
