|
|
|
|
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 12:46:34 AM | Marathonman getting a little defensive? I beg to differ on who is misinformed. First things first though I suggest you take some philosophy of language courses or something along those lines because your argument makes no sense.
"You seem to think the WORD "black" has scientific value.YOu could NOT be MORE misinformed. THINK,use another word for either and any socialogical or medical/genetic relavance would still apply."
Yes words are place holders for semantic meaning. What is your point? The word "red" could syntactically swap places with "blue" and retain the same meaning. Again what's your point, its the meaning behind the words that is important here.
I cited three sources of evidence:
New drugs coming on to the market that target race.
Genetics, e.g. tracing lineage.
Psychological studies that have been done in the past to show differences between members of different races.
You have yet to provide a counter example to any of these.
All you've said is that race is a nebulous concept that can be used to identify a large population which could better be described at a finer level of detail. This by no means proves that race doesn't exist. All it means is that its a broad word that is susceptible to generalizations and has sufficient gray area to be vague at times. Again this doesn't mean that race doesn't have underlying meaning or that it cannot be rigouresly defined.
Here's a simple definition:
Black, African American: Subset of humans who originated from Africa (rougly) and can be genetically identified via genes X Y Z.
Caucasian, White: Subset of humans originating from the European continent (roughly) and can be genetically identified via genes X Y Z.
And so on and so on for whatever subsets we decide to "label." Is his really hard to understand, here's another metaphor; dog breeds. Various subsets of of dogs are isolated from the general population and bred for certain characteristics. German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Poodles etc could all be likened to a race. Theres German Shepherds all around the world and in general they all share certain characteristics, are suseptible to certain ailments and all share a similiar set of genetics that is unique to their breed.
Race in humans is nearly akin to breed in dogs, however instead of through breeding the subsets in human populations have occured due to environmental pressures and isolation. Is this so hard to grasp?
Yes race is just a label, but the same can be said for every other word in any language. If all you're saying is that the words "black and white" are too broad in their popular usage then perhaps i'd agree. That does not however mean that race cannot be given a better/more precise definition via scientific backing. The same applies to many other words in the dictionary. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 12:58:05 AM | | oh boy eddie... you've done it now!!! you used the same dog breeding analogy i did... duck... the hypersensitive are gonna attack you but don't worry, it doesn't hurt a bit ;) | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 1:07:38 AM | Damn you already used the dog breeding analogy? Good work! I don't see whats wrong with it, the human species is just another mammal whether we like it or not. Same rules apply.
If people want to say the common usage of black and white are not rigouress enough then so be it and perhaps rightfully so. Simple solution use and understand the one backed by science and genetics. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 1:22:50 AM | Words such as "black, white" do actually have scientific relevance, and as such can perhaps be used to choose a potential mate.
Eddie,YOU wrote this to me.I quoted it. Now, you write.....:
Yes words are place holders for semantic meaning. What is your point? The word "red" could syntactically swap places with "blue" and retain the same meaning. Again what's your point
THAT IS THE POINT! Eddie,if you are going to attempt to have a serious discussion,you must at least know YOUR own stated position. Come on now Eddie,you(and its qouted) said WORDS like "black....do have scientific relevance..."....NOW,AFTER I point out to you the silliness of your statement you say....."Yes words are place holders"
Now the next part is easy,DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT WORDS ARE BEING DISCUSSED?
Now Eddie,you FAILED AGAIN. QUOTE or TYPE EXACTLY,what statements I TYPED, that YOU believe were incorrect. Eddie,what is so difficult about this? So far,you have quoted something I stated and you AGREED with it. What is it you dispute? I won't discuss anything based on what you felt or had an "impression" I said. I will discuss something I stated that you dispute. READ CAREFULLY. Why do I have to ask this question so many times,on more than 1 post to you? It is NOT that difficult, if you have something to bring to the table that differs or disputes what I have said....again...BRING IT. Eddie,what is so difficult about this? 
| |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 1:45:17 AM | Seriously man are you truly so intellectually lacking?? You do understand that theres is no contension between the two things you quoted.
Do I have to do define what the words syntax and semantics mean? Before you continue to spew more crap why don't you google the them to educate yourself.
"THAT IS THE POINT! Eddie,if you are going to attempt to have a serious discussion,you must at least know YOUR own stated position. Come on now Eddie,you(and its qouted) said WORDS like "black....do have scientific relevance..."....NOW,AFTER I point out to you the silliness of your statement you say....."Yes words are place holders"
Now the next part is easy,DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT WORDS ARE BEING DISCUSSED?"
Listen I'll put it in very simple terms so even you can understand. Do you know what a variable is? You know like in basic algerba X + Y = Z. Words are variables, place holders for a definition/semantic meaning. The way the words are structured in the equation is called syntax. The actual words themselves are just text, meaningless with out syntax and semantics. In your earlier arguments you stated basically touched upon the lack of validity of text without syntax or semantics. This holds true for every single word in every single language, not just race. Hence your point being meaningless.
Getting clearer?
"Black" is a placeholder, a variabe for a meaning, in my case I am arguing a scientific meaning based on genetics. Its not the letters "b" "l" "a" "c" "k" that are important its the semantics behind the word. The same is true for all words, the assignment of text to a meaning is for arguments sake arbitrary hence the "red blue" concept. Now that you have successfully completed a language 101 course you will understand that the two quotes you posted above are not contradictory. Rather its just a case of you not understanding the argument.
Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race#Summary_of_different_definitions_of_race
it will give you some perspectives on the different meanings/theories on race. Your arguments are summarized nicely in their as is the other side of the coin. For now this discussion is done because clearly its not registering with you. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 2:16:30 AM | Eddie,in NONE of that post did you address what YOU said in your post 115.
Come on now, I'm allowing you to waste my time. Do you remember what brought this discussion on?
This quote is from your msg 115,post 122
Marathonman: I've noticed from your posts that you do not have a big understanding of the scientific definition of race.
My response was
Eddie,I noticed from that post that you do not have any understanding of my post nor the concept,history nor "definition of race". You could be refering to various things but due to your lack of specifics it makes discussion impossible doesn't it? In fact,it limits your post to a childish "you don't know what you are talking about" type statement without ANYTHING to back or base it upon.Does "white""black" sound like "scientific definitions or labels/groupings of race to YOU? Surely,you are intelligent enough to know that if you have information that is relevant to interracial dating or racial classification that is contrary to something posted the intelligent thing to do would be to post it.IF there is something you disagree with quote it,or state exactly what it is and why you disagree.If you have relevant information I and most others welcome it....but you must BRING IT." Your response: Words such as "black, white" do actually have scientific relevance, My response: This is 1 of the areas in which you are misinformed. Just look and think.My post have always consistantly identified "back" "white" as labels. You seem to think the WORD "black" has sceintific value.YOu could NOT be MORE misinformed. Now,to this YOU respond: Yes words are place holders for semantic meaning. What is your point? Do you see the pattern here yet?..........I responded thusly: THAT IS THE POINT! Eddie,if you are going to attempt to have a serious discussion,you must at least know YOUR own stated position. Come on now Eddie,you(and its qouted) said WORDS like "black....do have scientific relevance..."....NOW,AFTER I point out to you the silliness of your statement you say....."Yes words are place holders" Now the next part is easy,DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT WORDS ARE BEING DISCUSSED? Again, I informed you to state what I SAID that YOU disagree with...here is my response: ......Now Eddie,you FAILED AGAIN. QUOTE or TYPE EXACTLY,what statements I TYPED, that YOU believe were incorrect. Eddie,what is so difficult about this? So far,you have quoted something I stated and you AGREED with it. What is it you dispute? I won't discuss anything based on what you felt or had an "impression" I said. I will discuss something I stated that you dispute. READ CAREFULLY. Why do I have to ask this question so many times,on more than 1 post to you? It is NOT that difficult, if you have something to bring to the table that differs or disputes what I have said....again...BRING IT. Eddie,what is so difficult about this? I won't go in circles with you Eddie. Its simple if you disagree with something I said say what it is EXACTLY. BTW>"You do understand that theres is no contension between the two things you quoted." Yes there is. 1st you said the WORD "black" had real scientific relevance to the issue of race. Then you admit its just a "place holder". I've stated what "place holder" is appropriate for mixed race people of African descent in the Americas. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 2:29:01 AM | | Cant see what the big deal is we are all humans!...in Aussie,this is not at all an issue.racisim is not big here! | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 2:48:18 AM |
we are all humans
Yep.......I also stated that my last post on page 5 (msg121).
My contention from the beginning has been this point. I also say simply learn the culture and heritage of those you are interested in(smart people even try to learn others).This is true in ANY kind of dating,a wise person would WANT to know as much about the other as possible.
BTW,Eddie stay focused........find what I stated that you disagree with,then post it. Its really simple. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 10:29:50 AM | I've noticed that when people are destroying your futile attempts at an argument and saying things you don't understand you'll say stuff like "childish posts, stay focused, the lesson has just begun etc."
"Racial classification is very VERY loosely and weakly based upon science.It is a system of labels, somewhat arbituary at that."
That is a quote from you now let me refresh your memory on what i've argued.
1. Genetic definitions of race are not weak or loose science. These definitions are politically opposed by people such as yourself who are content to say everyone is the same and brush things under the table. Supremecists have also tried to twist the genetic meanings of race towards their own agenda, another reason this is subject is traditionally brushed under the table.
2. All words in the dictionary are arbitrary labels, its the meaning behind them that counts not the label itself. Which is what you implied with your uneducated argument on words a few messages back. Again research syntax, semantics, variables etc and you might begin to understand why you wrong.
Got it? | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 10:48:19 AM | | eddie... you are exactly right about dog breeding vs. humans breeding but when you talk to certain people around here, your point is not understood because you are on a completely different intellectual level. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 11:37:24 AM | | I'd rather see an inter-racial relationship than an inter-racial war. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 12:03:16 PM | I asked you 4 or 5 times to quote EXACTLY what I said that you disagreed with,it took you THAT long to come up with that?
Now,here is the data and link www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm
THis was published by PBS: "Race has NO genetic basis. Not 1 characteristic trait or gene distinguishes all members of 1 so called race from all memebers of another."
Here is another link and source.
http://www.whatis.tv/Race.html "
"The analyses of most social scientists conclude that the common social notions of race are social constructs. These definitions of race are derived from custom, vary between cultures, and are described as imprecise, fluid, or arbitrary. Often these definitions rely on phenotypic characteristics or inferred ancestry. "What is race? It’s an easy answer, right? There are white people, black people, yellow people, etc. Question answered. However, we are all genetically the same. There is not a single gene in our body that determines our “race” (Brown p 133). If that gene existed, we would be unable to produce offspring with different races. Our skin color is a characteristic that is determined by the amount of melanin present in our skin and other heterogenic genes. Many people get race and ethnic groups confused. An ethnic group is a group of people that share a common culture. Race does not exist. It is a figment of everybody’s imagination. Race is a social construction that is used as a means of classifying people. "
Here is more from another source:http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race.htm
"There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non- Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non-Whites. One's race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle cell anemia. Nor are races marked by important differences in gene frequencies, the rates of appearance of certain gene types. The data compiled by various scientists demonstrates, contrary to popular opinion, that intra-group differences exceed inter-group differences. That is, greater genetic variation exists within the populations typically labeled Black and White than between these populations. This finding refutes the supposition that racial divisions reflect fundamental genetic differences"
This from God and Science "Protein polymorphisms
84% of all variation is found within each racial group
10% of variation is found among racial groups
More genetic variation is found within races than between them "
Now THIS is what I said and YOU quoted and stated that you dispute:
"Racial classification is very VERY loosely and weakly based upon science.It is a system of labels, somewhat arbituary at that."
Now,that YOU FINALLY stated what statement I made that you disagree with I have shown you many links and qoutes from them that make the SAME point.
Now,It took you a few days to understand that to debate something you must first state EXACTLY what it is you dispute. I hope it dosen't take a week for you to see the consistancy of what I have said the the data shown. Remeber,the heart of this dispute is that you say my statement that you have now qouted shows" that you do not have a big understanding of the scientific definition of race." It seems YOU do not.
Now, Eddie stay on topic! 1) Is racial classification(particularly the most widely used Eurocentric)loosely and weakly based on science? The data indicates YES!
2)Are the labels used somewhat arbituary? The data shows YES!!!(even you have come close to admiting this)
Perhaps your emotions and personal views cloud your judgement.
It seems clear that the ONLY thing to be discussed that you disagree with are the 2 points I just mentioned.
BTW, you never mentioned the fact that you were obviously wrong about "the word" "black" having scientific meaning. Although you now see that YOU were lost in semantics. Perhaps what you meant to say or intended to say was the CONCEPT of race has scientiic relevance. There is a huge difference. Don't let this get you off focus, stick to the 2 points mentioned earlier.You tend to want to debate apples and potatoes. Remember YOU said what you quoted of me was what you disagreed with. DO NOT SUPERIMPOSE what YOU "feel" I was saying over what I stated. That is ignorant and childish to do. I've kept asking you to post what you claim to disagree with so that the table of discussion would be set. Now that I have clearly outlined things for you and broken the "disputed" statement into its 2 parts,perhaps you can find a way to actually bring something to the table directly.
| |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 1:16:20 PM | Way to search for data that supports your point of view but fully ignores the data that DOES NOT.
From wikipedia:
"A race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in some way from other humans. The most widely observed races are those based on skin color, facial features, ancestry, and genetics. Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, are often controversial due to their impact on social identity hence identity politics."
Very simple to understand.
Some more information on a genetic definition of race:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineage_%28evolution%29
Many contemporary biological definitions of race conceptualize races as evolutionary lineages within the human species. Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry. An example of this concept is represented in Figure 2.
A primary motivation for categorizing human genetic variation in this way comes from biomedical research. In this context, human races represent different genetic backgrounds that may influence the association of diseases with their causes (genetic or environmental).
The concept of racial lineage is very similar to the concept of familial lineages in genealogy. This has led some commentators to describe races as extended families..."
You quoted something called "God and Science" sounds fishy to me. Are you quoting some lamass religious propoganda and trying to pass it as science? How about quoting a real source of information such as:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html
Those stats on percentages are meaningless all the say is that there are individual genetic differences between people that outweigh the racial differences. That does not mean race isn't real, you do understand that right? Of course there is genetic variation amoungst individuals!! If there wasn't we would all be the same, of course 99% of our genetics are the same accross races. iI they weren't we wouldn't be the same species. Again that doesn't prove race isn't real. Even if the genetic difference is only .000001% between races that doesn't mean its insignificant. Comprende?
I suggest you read the links i've posted as they will educate you.
As for not stating exactly what I'm arguing why don't you flip back to post 115 where I clearly state that you do not have a good understanding of the scientific/genetic/biological basis of race. Perhaps the problem is that you can only type and don't know how to read??!?
I really don't see what the problem with acknowledging the reality of race is, unless you're embarassed to be Black?? Perhaps some deep seated psychological issue, sounds "childish" to me. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 1:49:26 PM | Eddie,Eddie Eddie,how about I kept this brief so you can better follow? This is what YOU FINALLY said you disagreed with:
Racial classification is very VERY loosely and weakly based upon science.It is a system of labels, somewhat arbituary at that.
I broke down the components of my qoute for you earlier:
"Now, Eddie stay on topic! 1) Is racial classification(particularly the most widely used Eurocentric)loosely and weakly based on science? The data indicates YES!
2)Are the labels used somewhat arbituary? The data shows YES!!!(even you have come close to admiting this)"
Now,since it is YOU that said that the statement I qouted showed a lack of understanding of race,you must support how and why. WHAT YOU POSTED WAS A DEFFINITION OF THE USEAGE OF THE TERM RACE. Does it dispute point #1? NO! point #2? NO!
MORE importantly, I have provided links and quotes from a VARIETY of sources directly ON TOPIC. That even YOU ADMIT support what I said. So now do all the leading athorites who believe as I do and who have stated as I have lack understanding? Or just YOU!
I really don't see what the problem with acknowledging the reality of race is, unless you're embarassed to be Black
This AGAIN,shows how RIDICULOUS you are being....I have repeatedly stated that I am an AfricanAmerican My profile says it as well. On the other hand....what do YOU say YOU are? THAT is more likely YOUR TRUE ISSUE.
Come on now Eddie,focus.2 point.....TOO many post in which you backtrack and dance....Or is ADD your true issue. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 2:54:10 PM | BTW,for ANYONE who wishes to know,I didn't do a search"for evidence that supports"my statements. I did a simple search What is race........you may do the same.I also did simple searches on genetics and race....racial classifications..... and science and race. I ONLY did the searches to provide links ans quotes to allow those interested,that my views are not my views based solely upon my opinion and observation. The OVERWELMING majority of geneticist agree. I knew where the majority of educated scientific community stood,but waited for Eddie to actually state what he believed was the basis for "feeling" I lacked knowledge on topic. Now,that he has shown himself the data is OBVIOUS and ANYONE can do a search to find THE MAJORITY of the scientific community particularly geneticist agree with me.
Check this out:
"Essentially, race is like the dots on the screen. In science, race means nothing. The dots mean nothing until we create the meaning, as we've done over human history.
"Race isn't science. Race isn't biological," says Angela Blackwell, Senior Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation, which supports studies on race relations. "So, I think it's helpful to go back and use science to uncover the fact that there's no scientific basis for all the racial differences that we make such a big deal over. But we can't deny the fact that, even though a social construct, it has become a part of our lives, our everyday lives. And it stands in the way of our being able to achieve all that we need to individually, collectively, or as a nation"
From a piece from a discussion/study done by KRON4
"Race" is largely a social construct. This concludes the rudiments of lesson #1......if interested search out the idealogies and history behind the current system most widely used. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 3:12:59 PM | My personal opinion: I have always been attracted to the PERSON first, gender second, and quite frankly race has never crossed my mid nor been an issue.
The closest i have ever come to race being a problem was when a gentleman decided he could not date me because i was British and he was American. (and if you are thinking "WTF!!??", yes, so did I .. LOL) | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 4:21:24 PM | | We share the opinion of the relative unimportance of race in dating. Your story with the Brit is funny and shows how silly people can be. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 4:59:59 PM | You're can't really be so ignorant can you?? If you had read the articles I'd posted and not searched for information from some religious pseudo science website you'd have found out that Scientists are split on the issue. 50 - 50 and guess what the biggest reason its 50 - 50 is due to politics. Why don't you actually read before making yourself sound like an idiot. FYI the "overwhelming majority of the educated scientific community" are NOT against the concept of race, so don't speak of things you know little about. Again do some reading. Do you even know what science is? What are your credentials? You're no scientist, definately not an anthropologist, not a geneticist, not a doctor, not a psychologist I doubt you are anything that requires a rigorous and logical mindset. What exactly are your credentials as far as science goes since you seem to think you know the opinions of the scientific community.
I'm sure you'll google yourself a good profession to answer with.
Anyone can type words into google, but actually reading the full article and understanding the subject is a different matter. You've proven time and time again which side of the line you draw from.
| |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 5:04:16 PM | | Oh wow!undercover....now that was just "sad"!that guy sounds like he's a pretty "petty 1" indeed...I have a co-worker who is white,and though he say's that he luvs "all" sista's,he can only be with or marry 1 who is "light-skin" I gotta big laugh outta that 1... | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 7:50:12 PM | | eddie... what are the odds of me being able to google myself into something cool like a fairy godmother? | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 7:53:51 PM | I've posted what YOU'VE claimed to have issue with(took you 2 days to clearly state what it was that you disagreed with). Are you too dense to see this or too busy dancing and backpeddling around an issue YOU brought up?
I broke down the components of my qoute for you earlier:
"Now, Eddie stay on topic! 1) Is racial classification(particularly the most widely used Eurocentric)loosely and weakly based on science? The data indicates YES!
2)Are the labels used somewhat arbituary? The data shows YES!!!(even you have come close to admiting this)"
Now,since it is YOU that said that the statement I qouted showed a lack of understanding of race,you must support how and why. WHAT YOU POSTED WAS A DEFFINITION OF THE USAGE OF THE TERM RACE. Does it dispute point #1? NO! point #2? NO!
MORE importantly, I have provided links and quotes from a VARIETY of sources directly ON TOPIC. That even YOU ADMIT support what I said. So now do all the leading athorites who believe as I do and who have stated as I have lack understanding? Or just YOU!
[quote Scientists are split on the issue. 50 - 50 and guess what the biggest reason its 50 - 50 is due to politics.
That is such a weak and childish backpeddle. YOU stated that I didn't understand,now you say scientist are split.(they are not split 50-50)IF that is the case,still what we'd have is a difference of opinon and NOT 1 that reflects what you SIAD "reflective of understanding".
Now of course instead of debating the issue,you want to slant and say its a 50-50 split?
However,the FACT actually is that you have made a statement about what you "felt" from what I said and failed to show that I was incorrect in ANYWAY. What YOU have shown is your own ignorance of the concepts and facts as well as a VERY childish and immature
inabiltiy to read,understand and support what you claim.What you have done is WASTE TIME and SPACE; BACKPEDDLING and sidstepping. You avoid the issues by making post that are not relating and LYING by saying that your links show that scientist are divided 50-50.
What you have admitted was YES,the word "black" is a simple label as I originally stated.But you wasted time learning that. Let me put more space between words and sentences so that you may follow.
Anyone can type words into google, but actually reading the full article and understanding the subject is a different matter.
That is most probably the closest we'll ever get to an admission from you that that is exactly what you do and why you know nothing. I've broken things down and lined them out very neatly and simply for you but you still dodge shuck and jive. UNLESS YOU CAN INTELLIGENTLY ANSWER the 2 points Its pointless to further discussion with you.
Ignorance is the lack of knowledge.To have information broken down for you,outlined and presented and STILL ignore it is stupidity.....Or is ADD 1 of your true issues?
"I really don't see what the problem with acknowledging the reality of race is, unless you're embarassed to be Black "
This AGAIN,shows how RIDICULOUS you are being....I have repeatedly stated that I am an AfricanAmerican My profile says it as well. On the other hand....what do YOU say YOU are? THAT is more likely YOUR TRUE ISSUE.
| |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/4/2005 10:56:06 PM | "childish and immature" wah wah wah whine me a fu**ing river, Eurocentric wah wah wah the whole world is against me wah wah wah.
FYI Scientists are split on a lot of things, i simply stated you don't understand the subject matter that is in contension. Which once again you've proved you haven't. So you never did answer what you do for a living and what your credentials are to be lecturing on the subject.
Theres absolutely no backpeddling on my part its just you unable to comprehend and read from the first post.
Cya. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/5/2005 8:32:59 AM | You've done nothing BUT backpeddled because it was clear from your post 122 that you were simply stating an emotional opinion based upon misinformation and total ignorance.
AGAIN here is the summary:
This quote is from your msg 115,post 122
Marathonman: I've noticed from your posts that you do not have a big understanding of the scientific definition of race.
My response was
Eddie,I noticed from that post that you do not have any understanding of my post nor the concept,history nor "definition of race". You could be refering to various things but due to your lack of specifics it makes discussion impossible doesn't it? In fact,it limits your post to a childish "you don't know what you are talking about" type statement without ANYTHING to back or base it upon.Does "white""black" sound like "scientific definitions or labels/groupings of race to YOU? Surely,you are intelligent enough to know that if you have information that is relevant to interracial dating or racial classification that is contrary to something posted the intelligent thing to do would be to post it.IF there is something you disagree with quote it,or state exactly what it is and why you disagree.If you have relevant information I and most others welcome it....but you must BRING IT."
I've heard of slow,I've heard of ignorant,but it took you 4 post (AFTER the above exchange) all directed to me to simply get you to FINALY post WHAT I SAID with which you disagreed. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt in saying you were being evassisve and backpeddling. 
This is my statement that you claimed to disagree with AND that led you to make the statement you made in post 122:
Racial classification is very VERY loosely and weakly based upon science.It is a system of labels, somewhat arbituary at that."
Now,I provided 4 different sources that showed that in fact the most widely used system of racial classification is in fact Eurocentric and loosely and weakly based upon science. Here is another: "Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md." 
My sources have ranged from news media orgs. to scientific orgs. to individual scholars in the field of genetics.I've even refrianed from using nonwhite ethnicities as sources.
You on the other hand,have NOT provided ANY source that says race is solely,deeply or mainly based upon science  I'll repeat so you can understand. You on the other hand,have NOT provided ANY source that says race is solely,deeply or mainly based upon science What you provided was a definition of the USE of race.
We know and knew how the term is used! The issue and questions I broke down for you 3 post ago:
"Now, Eddie stay on topic! 1) Is racial classification(particularly the most widely used Eurocentric)loosely and weakly based on science? The data indicates YES!
2)Are the labels used somewhat arbituary? The data shows YES!!!(even you have come close to admiting this)"
Now,since it is YOU that said that the statement I qouted showed a lack of understanding of race,you must support how and why. WHAT YOU POSTED WAS A DEFFINITION OF THE USEAGE OF THE TERM RACE. Does it dispute point #1? NO! point #2? NO!
MORE importantly, I have provided links and quotes from a VARIETY of sources directly ON TOPIC. That even YOU ADMIT support what I said. So now do all the leading athorites who believe as I do and who have stated as I have lack understanding? Or just YOU!"
To which you stated scientist were split 50-50
Now, lets see,at 1st you say my views lacked knowledge,now you say that my view is backed by 50% of the scientist Eddie,eddie eddie.....that would either be a contradictory backpeddle or a statement that 50% of scientist,100% of those who agree with me, lack knowledge on the topic. It is a BACKPEDDLE and a LIE and you know it Show proof that 50 PERCENT of scientist disagree! The fact is that you can't.Your statement was simply a backpeddle based upon an "out" you thought you found when you finally did some brief reading and found a passage that stated that some scientist were split,... the 50-50 I believe YOU MADE UP
More importantly the OVERWELMING majority of geneticist endorse MY statement.Certainly if a geologist has an opinion on race it means nothing compared to what a geneticist would say.
Both are scientist but only 1 works in the field
The funny thing is that you then began to question my credentials.....but you NEVER offered YOURS! TYPICAL and weak backpeddle!
You questioned my pride in my race:
I really don't see what the problem with acknowledging the reality of race is, unless you're embarassed to be Black
TYPICAL and weak backpeddle! What you've done consistatly has been to backpeddle,evade make emotional statements based upon misinformation and ignorance.
See,I NEVER stated "race" as a concept is not real.This is why I kept telling you to print what I said and NOT what you "felt" I meant. Also,throughout this thread I have noted MANY times that I am an AFRICAN AMERICAN I state it in my profile as well. It is not ME who is in anyway reluctant or "embarassed" about my ethnicity. It is MUCH more likely YOU ARE. You are OBVIOUSLY CONFUSED and MISINFORMED about race and ought to be embarassed about your inability to grasp the concepts and your misinformation.
| |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/5/2005 11:17:27 AM | | All those smiley faces and capital letters add much substance to your delluded arguements. | |
|
| Interracial Dating....
Posted: 7/5/2005 3:09:32 PM | It is YOU who attempted to "argue" with me. Only to find out you had nothing to argue with. Took you forever to even find a point to attempt to argue. Now,you have....the above.
Back on topic:Interracial dating is nothing new. It ONLY has negative elements when racist abound. In many countries interracial dating is more common that intraracial dating.Briazil is a prime example of this. Today, the majority of Brazilians are a mixed race people over 51%.The majority of them are a mixed race people of an African descendency(estimated up to 80%). In fact,today mixed race people are the majority in the majority of countries in the Americas. | |
|
|
|
Home
login