racism as a positive value..

[Blarg]

This is the second stupid thread with a stupid use of language this guy has made in a few minutes. Except this one is a troll rather than merely stupid.

Where's [censored] when you need him.

[Sponger15SB]

Everyone is racist. Doesn't seem healthy or necessary though.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is racist. Doesn't seem healthy or necessary though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please give me your defintion of "racist" as used here. I'll take as much detail as you're able to type.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the second stupid thread with a stupid use of language this guy has made in a few minutes. Except this one is a troll rather than merely stupid.

Where's [censored] when you need him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems an awfully harsh judgement, given the prelevant culture that is OOT.

Come on over to Sports Betting- we'll explain scalfie and the English language to you.

If, as rumor has it, scalf has been banned from 2+2 based solely on the two posts that I believe you are referencing.... then someone needs to explain the moderation concepts being used here.

[InchoateHand]

benfranklin.

Almost well said.

"Race: A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

Wrong.

I think any and every human geneticist will tell you that they are unable to find gene patterns that correspond to "race." If we went by strict genetic variation, there is only one race outside of subsaharan Africa, a few more within it.

Race is a social construct--it draws on "biology" but it does not, in anyway, represent biological fact. Especially since "classic" markers of race are phenotypic.

Anyway, scalf isn't even very good as a troll. If he had said that he had just succeeded in own of his life's ambitions, saying drinking the blood of a Jewish baby, then maybe he'd be worth a little more effort.

If you disagree with me, please feel free to try and find reputable scientific data that treats "race" as an ontologically existent biological feature.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Race is a social construct--it draws on "biology" but it does not, in anyway, represent biological fact. Especially since "classic" markers of race are phenotypic.


[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">phe·no·type
The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
<font color="green">An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype. </font></font>

Forgive my ignorance, but that word seems to disprove your statement somewhat.

And I think you're reading too much into scalf's motivations, for what it's worth.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[InchoateHand]

It really doesn't disprove my statement at all. The key is the "observable expression."

Two entirely different genes can have an "observable" physical feature that appears identical. The same gene can be expressed in wildly different way. What this means, for instance, is that a broad flat nose may be a variagated expression of the exact same gene as a long pointy nose. The observable differences, in-and-of-themselves, don't indicate variation on the genetic level.

And this is the problem, and why no, or no not-otherwise motivated, biologists will talk about race. It has nothing to with pc terms, it has everything to do with quantifiability.

The the oft-cited (but true!) dictum, within self-identified racial groups (since there is no universal agreed upon alternative) there is as great/greater genetic variation as between them. As in, me and some Kenyan may be a lot closer than me and scalf, on the genetic level, and I'm quite alright with that.

I'm not feeling particularly articulate today, but if you are actually interested in anything I'm sort-of saying, I can try and present my arguments more clearly at some later point. If you are simply looking for inconsistencies in my statements, I concede their omnipresence.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

...and you're their Grand Wizard.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
It really doesn't disprove my statement at all. The key is the "observable expression."

[/ QUOTE ]

"observable" and "biological" may not work together here. That is why I highlighted as I did:

<font color="blue">phe·no·type
The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.
The expression of a specific trait, such as stature or blood type, based on genetic and environmental influences.
<font color="green">An individual or group of organisms exhibiting a particular phenotype. </font></font>

The question may be, more properly expressed, whether race can be defined solely on "groups of organisms who exhibit a particular collection of phenotypes."

Of course, wasting our time trying to justify a more correct defition for "race" is probably a worthless pursuit.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not feeling particularly articulate today, but if you are actually interested in anything I'm sort-of saying, I can try and present my arguments more clearly at some later point. If you are simply looking for inconsistencies in my statements, I concede their omnipresence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't nitpicking for the joy of it, so when you feel bored enough to add further [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] feel free