I agree. I also disagree with Steven Jay Gould regarding Non-Overlapping Magisteria. I think religion and science are in direct conflict. To believe both requires turning off the science part of your brain while thinking about the religious part and vice versa. I think this is hypocrisy.
We all live with hypocrisy. Perhaps there are others who can live with that level of hypocrisy. I cannot. I’m sure others would chide me for the levels of hypocrisy with which I am capable of dealing. So, ….
Anyway, Niel does a great job (as always) explaining why reason and faith do not work together. He also takes on the God of the Gaps. Intelligent religious people do not go for the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.
Enjoy.
The Misanthropic Principle 
Homo stupidous has a psychological flaw in his make up that requires s/he/it the need to believe in illogical reasons/excuses for how or why things happen! It is rampant in every country and continent, too! It happens in part due to laziness when it comes to thinking about what are the underlying reasons for odd occurrences, and hidden activities.
When ever a superstition arises, it needs to be debunked quickly before it becomes folk lore. Some of these “Old Wives Tales” are actually started as a joke pulled on some one who is more than a little bit gullible! Then later the perps fail reveal the truth of the matter, sometimes out of embarrassment, other times just plain maliciously!
So get use to it!
Used to it? Or, abused to it? Methinks the latter.
Its definitional. Science is about “the real world” while Religion is about the supernatural (“outside of space and time”… or causation). Those are the two magisteria and by those definitions, quite right: they don’t overlap or interfere with one another.
Real world problem is that while Religion will “say” its about the supernatural, they immediately have it address real world issues: like morality and values, much worse: origins. IOW–while science and religion may be defined as separate non-overlapping areas of study, religion never actually limits itself that way.
I don’t agree with your definitions. But, I do agree with your conclusion. Religion, depending on the particular flavor, is about the supernatural to a point. Then, as you say, it does not stop there. Most religions were formed before science existed. They are, in addition to being about the supernatural, are also very much about the real world.
They get that bit completely and utterly wrong.
But, the religions do attempt to explain the real natural world and the presence of one or more gods in it, setting aside the very few religions that have no supernatural component such as Buddhism as Siddhartha Gautama specified it. But, the presence of the presumed gods or other supernatural creatures such as wood sprites, give a view of the natural world that is indeed flatly and demonstrably false. This is where the magisteria overlap and the conflict becomes, IMNSHO, undeniable and irreconcilable.
You claim religion simply doesn’t limit itself this way. I claim that it explicitly and deliberately breaks the rule of sticking only to the supernatural.
Religion is the wonder of what we, yet dont know.
Its the Stupid that WISH not to know..
religion has a base, that it needs to be set on, and many religions STOP THERE..its that religion is YOU.
it is the thought that we NEED to have a basis on HOW to get along with each other. ITS an etticate (sp) book of HOW we should be with each other.
I love people who throw around words like Communism and Socialism…and I ask them if they are religious, and they say “YES” and I point out that the bible is the basis for BOTH..
MANY religions are NOT about the WORLD or what is around you..they are WHAT you ARE, or should be..
Christians and a few others, have limited themselves.
Religion as the wonder of what we yet don’t know is the God of the gaps. That god shrinks with each new scientific discovery.
As for religion being a basis for how to get along with each other, thank every non-existent god that ever failed to exist that we do not actually use it this way.
We do not stone homosexuals to death in the civilized world, and even in the U.S.
We do not stone people to death for working on the sabbath.
We do not stone our close family members to death if they suggest the worship of other gods.
We do not stone rape victims to death (if they are within city limits).
We do not force rape victims to marry their rapists (if they were outside city limits).
We do not keep the bloody sheets from our daughters’ wedding nights to prove their virginity should their husbands come and claim that they were not virgins on their wedding nights.
We do not stone our daughters to death if the father loses the bloody sheet and cannot prove their daughters’ virginity on the wedding night.
No. We do not learn how to get along with each other from the most common religions of our society. We learn how to get along based on the functioning morals processing centers that evolved in our brains over millions and tens of millions and possibly even hundreds of millions of years.
We advance in our morals and progress to ever higher moral standards as we include more and more people and even other species in our “in-group” and treat them with the respect we would normally give only to those of our local tribe. But, as we advance, that local tribe increases by leaps and bounds. Hopefully, one day, we can recognize that there is no “in-group” and “out-group”, but rather that we are all “us”, including the non-human sentiences with whom we share what’s left of our degrading biosphere.
But, we most certainly do not get that from religion.
Scotty—once again you FAIL to understand what an issue being definitional means. You want to think there is only one right definition: yours.
IF you define religion and science one way then you get one set or results to think about. IF you define religion and science some other way, then you get different results to think about.
Its definitional.
bobbo,
Don’t make up your own definitions. I already agreed with your conclusion from your first post. Now, pick one from column A and one from column B, so to speak, and make whatever point you think I missed.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t
Oh, and this is why I often comment on the fact that you never actually pick up a dictionary. It’s because whenever we have one of your stupid definitional discussions, it’s always me who has to link to a fucking dictionary. You never ever do.
The definition I stated is the one that supports Gould’s famous statement that we both disagree with because we define religion differently than he did.
By posting the definitions of religion and science as you do is just a continuing demonstration of you not understanding what a definitional argument is.
You want a definitional argument to mean an analysis of a single declarative sentence, but a definitional argument is a “conditional” one. As I stated above “if” you define religion and science as does Gould, you get the Magisterial conclusion. If you define religion as all too often trying to explain the real world, then you get our complaints.
Of note, science does a pretty good job of not trying to prove God does not exist. They follow Gould’s definition very consistently. Religion for various reasons has a hard time not addressing real world issues.
Your definition of religion above remains totally definitional. Its not definitive: what specific set of beliefs are a group of people agreeing to? ie–some would be that a particular sect is exclusively about the afterlife having nothing to do with the real world, while others and most of them might start off purely in that manner but eventually have their members waiting on a mountain top for the spaceship.
Its fun to watch the Catholic Church try to be all spiritual but their roots pull them into a conflict with science such as when they try to secretly perform exorcisms or anoint their Popes as Saints (needing two miracles).
I’ve seen the Jews do a nice twist as well: take what would be real world analysis and try to present it as just a cutural thing….. I’m thinking of food restrictions just now. To my biased and not caring eyes the Jews argue kosher only tries to show respect and honor to the Lord while at the same time the Catholics were trying to say it was a sin against the desires of God….. since changed I believe. blah, blah, blah.
Your lack of understanding is kinda silly times two. It is “right there” in writing, right in front of you. You just don’t get it.
Amusing….. until it irritates me so.
If I state the definition I am using, why divert your attention to a dictionary? In context to the argument I am making, the dictionary’s definition is not relevant. When a dictionary definition is relevant I have used it. Your claim I never have just goes to your confusion about what a definitional argument is. Same root terms are involved. You need to spend more time with a dictionary, or just read this and the other threads on topic until that chimera becomes clear.
Baby Step: can you agree that if you define religion and science as Gould and I did that you do get two non overlapping Magisteria?
bobbo,
For some bizarre reason, you tempted me to go and read Gould’s statement on the subject, which is well explained on his own site, or rather a site dedicated to him and his teachings since he is no more.
From that page, the closest I could come to your statement is his statement, “science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives.”
Source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
I’ll admit that this is close enough to your original statement and will concede your point on this.
I will also point out that the reason that I strongly disagree with Gould on this point is precisely that Gould himself had not picked up a dictionary prior to making this famous argument of his. Or, perhaps definition 2 of religion is just barely vague enough to allow his statement.
After reading his page though, I think he would be shocked today to see just how much the fundamentalist movement in the U.S. has grown and how mainstream it has become. I think he might recant his statement if he were alive to see how overlapping the magisteria have become and how mainstream the effort to prevent the teaching of science because of its contradiction to religion is now.
Hey, we agree….on all points. Gould did not make a definitional argument of the If/Then sort. He also rather just picked ONE definition and proceeded on his way.
Not very sophisticated.
Am I wrong to think this is the first time you have allowed my definition, statement, characterization to be “close enough” to find the value of the analysis? If not, one of 3?
Progress. Ha, ha. So………..it would be nice if religion and science were of two separate magisteria, but then there would be no conflict and no need for the discussion. Hmmmmm, I’m kinda surprised that Gould, being smarter than either of us, didn’t actually know that. My gut tells me he did and we just aren’t reading the right stuff. Always best to go to the source itself?
I don’t mind being wrong. But, I need to be convinced. Else, I stick to my guns.
But, yes. This could be the first time you’ve sufficiently argued your case and the research I did on my own changed my mind in your favor.
Perhaps you have not learned that the technique to sway my opinion is to be The Credible Hulk.
Well, I do mind being wrong and so give any credible counterpoint a fair review.
I also lack any large ego in getting anyone else to agree with me.
I do enjoy a contest of ideas that will appear similar to both the above from time to time.
On the few occasions in my life where I made wrong decisions, I wish someone/anyone/somehow a caution or opposing idea could have been presented to me. Then I would feel like at least I had a chance to make a better decision and I failed.
Why would you force anyone to overcome your ego in order for you to become a better person?
…………….doesn’t make any sense to me. You got some bad magisteria going on there.
I know a lot of people say “no offense, but …” and then proceed to offend. I really do mean that I do not intend offense by what I’m about to say. And yet, I expect that offense will indeed be taken.
The truth is bobbo that I’ve seen you offered an awful lot of opportunity to improve your opinions. And, I don’t recall a single case where you have done so.
As for overcoming my ego, I would never ever ask that. You misread what I asked. I need facts and proof before I decide that my opinions were wrong. That’s why I state that if you ever want to change my opinion, you should offer up a whole truckload of credible links backing up what you say.
Usually, you do not do so. So, usually you do not sway my opinion. Even in the case on this thread, you will notice that I had to do the research. I changed my opinion based on my research. You just made statements and expected me to take them as golden (Goulden?).
I will never do that. Why should I?
It’s not egotistical to require evidence to change one’s opinion.
Failing to have the books/articles at hand, the wiki is always worth a read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Thinking a tad more about it, I disagree with Gould. Religion has nothing to tell us about morals and ethics as his NOMA defines it. Once again…. if you want to “understand” anything, you have to use science. Morals and ethics actually is extremely a product of Darwinian evolution.
I overstated that. Religion does have something to teach/demonstrate about morals and ethics: how to get it wrong. Ha, ha.
But as the Wiki reveals, the NOMA was arrived at as a political statement to get religion off of science’s back. To convince the religious to leave science alone. I think Gould was too much wrapped in his own magisteria to have been as conniving as such effort of necessity is. Getting Religion to think/teach it is not about the real world would totally gut it. A fine and worthy goal, they just ain’t gonna do it.
I agree. NOMA was a way out for Gould. He didn’t want to have the discussion. He was wrong. The discussion is necessary. If we don’t point out that religion is full of shit, religion will take over the science class.
yOU GUYS LOVE GENERALITIES..
RELIGION isnt bad..only the ones Iv seen.
There are MANY religions/beliefs..
SOME dont blame god..Some dont even have a GOD, except to say theat YOU may as well be one..
MANY relaigions have no CREATION, in them..
My problem is when SOME THINK, that GOD is the truth, FACT, person to Blame, praise, ALL KNOWING IDIOT he is..
Without involving the IDIOT HUMAN, god would not exist..
The wind blew the tree down..GOD DID IT. is NOT an answer..
I do see many religions that TRY to say 1 main thing…
GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER…TRY to HELP each other..
Looking at the BIBLE…
you get 2 parts..
The OLD, is based ont he Jewish faith..
The NEW, is a recounting, 300 years after the fact, of a person named Jose.
THEN there are TONS of bible stories, that Christians CLAIM…and I dont know why, as they are ALL about a bunch of Jews and their Times in the past…Many of which are VERY similar to Sumerian stories Centuries before.
ANd for SOME strange reason, even the Jews cant figure out..CHRISTIANS tend to take the bible, as the END ALL reference to Everything under the sun..Which even the jews, acknowledge, isnt correct.
ECA—I assume the irony was intended that your post is entirely a generality.
…………and the fact is that My Post was as specific as you can get? Well, the point was==religion defined as Gould did to give it its own Magisteria.
…After that, yes I was general as it wasn’t the main point that as you say generally speaking religion makes claims it can’t prove. Thats the problem with religion as generally thought of and how sophisticates often come to Goulds position: once you can “prove” anything, you are using science.
ECA,
Indeed there are some religions that do not do evil. Zen Buddhism may or may not be one. I’m not sure. Jainism is fine. If one is taught not to even kill an insect, it is unlikely their religion will cause them to kill a boatload of people of some other faith.
Perhaps because of their peaceful properties though, these religions do not have the numbers that Christianity and Islam have. Perhaps Zen Buddhism might have similar numbers to Judaism.
But, it is the religions that proselytize, especially with a history of having done so with the blade of a sword, that have over a billion followers. For some reason, Judaism explicitly does not proselytize. If I were still following the Jewish religion and you told me you wanted to convert to Judaism, it would be my job to talk you out of it.
Given Jewish history that should not be very difficult.
But, you have a good point about reading the Bible literally and believing it to be all there is. Jews and Catholics certainly do not believe that. Jews have had the Talmud for some long period of Jewish history. The Talmud is all a history of rabbis debating about the meaning of the Bible and its passages and most certainly not taking the Bible literally. I believe Catholics have something similar in the Catechisms, though I don’t know enough about them to claim any real knowledge of what’s in them.
Strangely, Catholics seem to be the only Christians that I end up meeting who do not end up getting surprised by the crap that’s in the Old Testament. They seem to actually read the whole Bible. Most other reasonable (i.e. non-fundamentalist) Christians I’ve met have not actually read what’s in there and can easily be shocked by passages about genocides or of Lot fucking his daughters. Many semi-religious Jews are also easily shocked by the Bible, including my family members. Those who go to temple only on the High Holidays have little idea what’s in that wacko book. I’ve even shocked a family member or two with one of the prayers that’s right in the Passover Haggadah (used to guide the Passover Seder) that my family conveniently and rightfully pass over every year.
The version of the Haggadah that my family uses says this slightly differently. But, the meaning is the same. I believe ours says something about pursuing them into the dusts of the earth. It’s probably a slightly different translation of the same Hebrew text.
Anyway, my point of the shocking passage above and of mentioning the genocides and incest as well as passages on rape and other good bits of the babble are easy to use for shock value as most people never actually read the book upon which their religion is based. Good thing too. That book is a seriously violent piece of shit.
bobbo,
Yes. I agree. We should not leave morals to the religions of the world. Few have come up with any decent morals. Those few that have, have not killed enough people to dominate enough of world politics to make much difference. Even in India, there are not many Jains. Perhaps Japan with Zen Buddhism is the so-called exception that proves the rule (silly expression really). Perhaps Japan alone has a majority religion that is essentially atheistic and preaches a good morality. But, I really don’t know enough and would not be surprised to be wrong on the subject. The Buddhism practiced by the Dalia Lama is full of superstitious crap. I don’t know how the morals are in that religion.
Scotty, you say: “The truth is bobbo that I’ve seen you offered an awful lot of opportunity to improve your opinions. And, I don’t recall a single case where you have done so.” //// Now that you have actually used a definition to reformulate a position, pick “any” position I have taken that could be improved. Most of the “heated” discussion I recall have pretty much broken down on this issue of “use the dictionary”/Its definitional.
In my mind, we have rarely connected on issues of disagreement because we in fact have never agreed on the definitions of the terms/ideas we were using. No progress was shown because the arguments I used were never “engaged.” Typically, I use conditional positions: “If”/”Then. You typically say there is no “if” just the way I look at things. And I disagree saying your position is correct only if you adopt THE definition you are using, but there are other definitions that add to the understanding of the subject.
I can easily think of 5-6 disagreement that have gone that way.
Surprise me. Indeed, MY position will be the same: how do you define Artificial Intelligence, eugenics, race…..hmmm, only 3 snap to mind. Or, skip the review as the subject will no doubt be active on our next discussion. You still don’t get what being definitional means, but you have used it once…. I trust you are on your way.
Happy Thoughts.
I’m not going to go through every conversation we’ve ever had. Find me one where you did change your opinion. we’ve had probably hundreds of discussions, some of the quite long and drawn out, if nothing about any of your opinions has ever changed as a result, statistically, it is very unlikely that you are actually considering other points of view at all. Statistically, on at least a few occasions, I’ve likely had the better opinion. I don’t ever recall you changing your mind about anything. So, find me just one example, and I’ll retract this statement. It’s possible it happened and I forgot.
Certainly, the examples you cite have been ones on which you’re brain had long since ossified in its opinion before we debated and did not change one iota despite some pretty good points I made.
So, your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to search the history of our discussions and find a case where I, or anyone else, convinced you of anything. If you are caught or captured, the state department will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds.
A Close Tangent, and kinda funny: Creationists now losing their minds because Neil deGrasse Tyson explained electricity. One page, a quick read:
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/19/creationists_now_losing_their_minds_because_neil_degrasse_tyson_explained_electricity/
Somewhat related, I find I have “bummed myself out” over AGW. Like most humans, I don’t picture the “far future” in my mind as concretely as I do Next Week, tomorrow, or RIGHT NOW. Causes all kinds of harm.
The POINT of 350ppm.org is that we are already well past the tipping point for catastrophic global warming, Past 400 accelerting towards 450ppm. Different tipping points along the way. Tippin Point: once reached, bad stuff is going to happen even IF WE STOP co2 pollution.
And the real kicker==denying Science whether it is Evolution or Climate has already destroyed our culture. Currently working on our species. Probably will go to our entire Phyllum if not more?
Good series on Showtime “Years of Living Dangerously” reported for the first time just how many times more dangerous/damaging to our future the use of Methane (Natural) Gas is in the carbon equation compared to Coal. Yet today, it is touted as “The clean answer” to pollution.
aka===Our heads are so far up our asses, we are all doomed. I do yearn for the innocence of a spotless mind. We won’t see it in our lifetimes, unless a huge chunck of Greenland falls off, but its sad to “know” where our species is headed, and we “won’t” soon to be can’t do anything about it.
………….an Open Letter to Bill Gates to STOP FUNDING more humans on Earth and instead fund how to feed, clothe, shelter, and transport them without killing off the next generation?
Lag time.
What a Bitch.
The point of 350.org is to point out not that we’re past 350 and it’s too late, but that we’re past 350 and must get back down to it if we’re to survive. I do think we can, in theory. We have all of the technology we would need to do so. We know how to get all the power we need from wind and solar. We have a device that will remove CO2 from the air and store it … and we know how to plant them. Look at Israel. It was a fucking desert. Now, it has trees. We know how to make that happen.
But, I agree. We won’t.
I’ve heard about “Years of Living Dangerously.” I don’t feel the need to watch. I’ve read at least 4 full-length books on climate change. I doubt a TV show is going to give me much new info.
As for, not seeing it in our lifetimes, I strongly disagree. I think we’ve been seeing it now for years. Darfur has been called the first climate war by the then-Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon. (Semi-related, Rwanda’s genocide has been called the first Malthusian conflict, i.e. one of overpopulation.)
Katrina, Sandy, heavy rains causing huge floods in the northeast, severe droughts in the midwest and California causing huge wildfires. Friends of ours pointed out that in southern California fire season used to be about one month a year. Now it’s more like eleven months. Australia had to add new colors to their temperature maps on their weather channels because of record high temperatures. One tiny island nation, I forget the name, has already been evacuated in the Pacific.
I can’t recall if Kiribati is the one of which I was thinking. But, they’re evacuating.
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/kiribati-a-nation-going-under/590/
So, we no longer need to look at birds migrating weeks earlier than they did just a few decades ago. We no longer need to note that the trip I took to camp on an ice floe between Baffin and Bylot islands now starts two weeks earlier because the ice consistently breaks up two weeks earlier than when I went about a decade ago. We can look at an actual nation evacuating. We can look at world food production already in decline. We can look at record floods and droughts and fires.
Want to see climate change? Open your blinds. It’s right outside your window.
sTRANGE THOUGHT FOR YOU bO..
Just a thought..
Its real funny that we blame COWS for some of our problems..
Considering that when the world was covered with them..
from the family of ruminants that eat Grasses, and we hadabout 100 times more then we have now, there wasnt that much of a problem..
The problem I see is that Mankind CANT/WONT, cant figure out that he has cause’d this.. partly by killing off so many animals in a closed system. Partly because we feed COWS, some REALLY bad shit..
Mankind cant leave things alone unless he can show OWNERSHIP, and then its someone else’s problem.
Even the USA, has shipped its Business and work over sea’s so we can say, WE POLLUTE LESS.
Religion has a good basis, in TRYING to get people to help each other..almost EVERY religion asks this.
The problems tend to be the ones CLAIMED by the white folk.. And for ALL the things we DO, according to the bible, we are always RIGHT… and no matter WHAT the bible says, we will declare we are RIGHT, even when we are and were WRONG..
Even the person of Christ…I wonder about, because he has a VERY good chance of being of a Very dark color. And trying to get these WHITE christians to see the logic of this, will NOT override what has been BURNED into their minds.
Iv seen other religions do MORE for their own people, and some MUCH worse. but the major 3, that are based on a Figure head in the last 2000 years, SCARE ME more then others. mostly because the reads of those religions…DONT READ THEM for what they are trying to say.
And PART of it comes to another problem..IF they dont have to DEAL with it or SEE IT, its not happening. which leads back to the beginning of my post. Pollution is pollution..I dont CARE where its happening. The decimation of our animal life, it about to KILL this planet. What will happen Soon, is that we will kill off enough FISH that the only thing to GROW in the ocean will be Jelly fish and Microbes… And I dont want to see it. Iv seen Stagnant ponds of water..and the Ocean will soon turn into one. only because the BIG 3 religions dont give a dam about the world, only WHO is right..
Cows/ruminants 100 times more populous than now? I don’t have a feel for that. The wild used to be the whole earth, today cows, sheep, goats, horses, pigs etc all protected by humans against their natural enemies.
The whole point about cows and methane is to emphasize that methane gas has about 700 times the deleterious affect of co2 in the atmosphere and “as a matter of fact” cows (the reference was just cows who knows could have included all grass eating criters) produce more green house gases than do cars. (hmm… I wonder if that is by volume or by effect?–big difference).
So….. yes, one immediate thing we can do to have a significant effect on climate is to go vegan. Won’t happen of course nor should it until all possible things have been done against coal powered electrical production. Its why we are all doomed.
I can’t do better than Scotty did regarding religion. Some would say that Buddhism and Jainism aren’t even religions but rather are philosophies of life that address man’s spiritual nature and needs OUTSIDE of religion.
Its definitional.
Another tangent…. I think termites produce more methane than any other source on earth—or maybe just living animal source? And yeah, we are supposed to eat them too….. to save the earth.
……………..things we “oughtta” do.
You won’t catch me eating termites no matter how much you convince me that it’s environmentally conscious (which it probably would be). You’d have better luck getting me to try jellyfish, another good choice.
Buddhism meets definition 2, which I would agree is a bit overly vague. Jainism is absolutely a religion. It’s quite similar to Hinduism with lots of gods and such.
Some forms of Buddhism, such as the Dalai Lama’s definitely have supernatural crap in them regarding reintarnation (coming back to life as a hillbilly) and karma and some other stuff, mostly borrowed from Hinduism. They even do mask dances to ward off evil spirits. That form of Buddhism is definitely far from what Siddhartha Gautama taught, and is solidly a religion. If all Buddhists stuck to what Gautama (the first Buddha) taught, I would agree that it was just a gentle life philosophy, similar to that espoused by Epicurus.
Just yesterday I found some bugs in my pancake flour. All dead from lack of water and “just protein” as born, lived, and died within a wax paper bag. I was 50/50 to ignore them and make waffles per normal, but I went ahead and sifted the flour through a tea strainer and removed the bug bodies and a few congealed lumps of flour.
After all, I may be from Africa, but I’m Indo-European!
ECA,
You said:
Sorry. I have to strongly disagree with this. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (singular for me as usual) asks that in one sentence and then in the next says death to everyone who is not of my religion.
It depends on which section of the babble you read. Check out that prayer I noted that my own family skips on Passover, asking Yahweh to kill everyone of any other religion.
That is not a peaceful thought.
And, we skip this prayer on the same night that we say “all who are hungry let them come and eat, all who are hungry let them come and share the passover seder with us.” Some uber-religious Jews will actually go out to find a homeless person to invite to the seder. But, still, one, not all. My family does not do this. We just say the hollow words without ever noting that of course we would not invite a homeless person into out home. Homeless != helpless. Homeless != safe. I wouldn’t do it. I give the occasional granola bar to a homeless person every so often. But, I don’t invite them in for dinner.
Or, for something even better, check out Deuteronomy 20:16, or really all of chapter 20. Or, 1 Samuel 15:3. That gets nice and specific about killing infants and sucklings. Nice.
Remember “Thou shalt not kill”? I think its somewhere around commandment 6 or 7 or so. Nowhere near number 1. But, the problem is, it means “thou shalt not kill US” it is always OK to kill THEM. And, there are so many exceptions when we not only can but must kill US as well that it’s just fucking meaningless. Just a few cases from memory where we must, according to the babble, kill US:
* When someone comes to us and says let us worship other gods.
* When someone works on the sabbath.
* When a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night.
* When a woman is raped inside city limits.
* When a person sleeps with a person of the same sex.
Note that in some of these case, especially the first, if you are a close family member, it is your duty to cast the first stone to set the example.
And, that’s just a short list from memory and only instructions for when to kill US. As for when to kill THEM, the examples are way too numerous.
WOW, you get it..
Its very interesting that EVEN after the 10 commandments and EVEN the stories of Christ….It still comes down to KILL THEM ALL, but not us..we kill our own.
And the funny part tends to be the region/TIMES that this was created.
Bo, as to Cows..Ruminants, are ALL the Deer, antelope, Bison, and TONS of other creatures..
There is something you may not under stand about these creatures. They EAT GRASS/PLANTS and SPREAd Seed and fertilizer..Seed that grows plants that SUCK UP CO2..
we have been doing this for years..Centuries..
This needs a BIG FIX, quickly as 1/2 this world needs fish.
Watch these 2 articles.
For SOME REASON, people have forgotten the WORLD.. And that is very important. To many religions end up..ME ME ME..
ECA–Cows fertilize but they eat and digest grass seeds and all other wind sowed seeds. Some exotic fruits spread by being excreted–not the grasses, not trees. Probably some insignificant exceptions. ….. But showing how rigid I am, let’s say you are right? Then I have to wonder so what? Everything finds its own level whether the factor of such animals varies by 100 or not.
Or am I wrong? I will consider “any” evidence, and any definitions that apply…. AND…. I’ll keep my EYES OPEN and retain my ability to tell black from white, red from green, brown from yellow…. you know… as best I can.
Excellent summation of religion. It’s every bit as circular as the God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is true because it is the word of God.
Kill ’em all, but not Us. We’ll kill our own.
Perfect.
Bo,
well its kinda easy..
1. HOw to protect the soil..
So its not blown away
So it absorbs enough water..
So it stays fertile..
2. if a Seed from a tree falls on a HARd surface..and isnt adapted to DIGGING into it..
It blows away..
trying to not get eaten, along its way to find Good soil, Good water, and a protected place so its not eaten..
Bo,
Have you ever seen Grass bloom? its like Wheat..
It has a great Fuzzy head..Digestion take off the husk on the part eaten, and the SEED drops out..
And its not just cattle..its ALL the ruminants..antelope, deer, bison, elephants….
ECA–hah, hah….. “If” I can understand the email notice of your post I am responding to, very few of us can “nest” our reponses appropriately.
If this post is responding to yours about the function of ruminates to spread grass seeds, I say well done. But I still think you are wrong. Good logical argument, but how do we know if it is true? WE TEST IT!!!! Let me give you the logical counter argument: especially with cows, their digestive tract FOUR stomachs ((—NOT 3-2-1 BUT FOUR)) are used to remove all possible nutrients in their poor source for it. I will eat a cow patty for breakfast if a cow does not consume all grass seeds that it eats. That shell you talk about is just too thin.
My position was a restatement from memory of high school biology where the grasses were listed as being propagated by the wind. I don’t recall any discussion of how much grass is in fact spread by ruminates. Given the think seed casing…. I suspect …. not much.
So…. lets look to wiki……….starting at 607 pm===>611pm: thats enough. Too much interference about buying Monsanto Turf. So I googled “how do grass seeds spread” and got this: “Like most other plants, grass seed is dispersed by wind, rain or by the indirect transportation supplied by insects, birds and mammals.” I assume the transport by animals is mostly by clinging to fur and what not….but not dispositive. However, I am satisfied that any grass spreading thru the digestive tract of ruminates is by far a minimal occurrence.
Call me biased by what I learned in High School.
Scotty: define race and use it to resolve the most recent political action based on it. Justice Department is going to release low level non-violent drug offenders from Jail because the law was disproportionately and discriminatorily applied against Blacks.
How can this happen when “science” does not recognize race as a human characteristic?
Let me amend the above as your point is that in our discussions I failed to learn anything from you and failed to modify my position based on your input. I said “Pick Any” and you demur saying you don’t wish to review EVERY issue. Right there is how we fail to connect and as usual its about 99% you.
I remember and cite the race issue because it is one where you are so clearly wrong. I engaged you with many questions/examples you refused to deal with simply falling back to a scientific definition that did not include race as a concept.
What does your analysis of race as it exists in further consideration by you provide me by way of improvement insight?
Blacks live in abused poverty, lessened opportunities, jail, and death and I would be better off understanding……. just exactly what?
But choose “any” subject we have discussed. Our approaches have been quite uniform. Same issues abound.
You never proved me wrong. Race does not exist. I showed numerous scientific examples of that. I didn’t want to focus on that because you went off on your own completely non-scientific side topic with which I simply never agreed was a topic worthy of conversation.
Racists do not create actual race any more than theists create any actual gods.
Your sidebar into social issues was irrelevant. That you still think you had a relevant scientific point shows only the degree to which you want to drive discussions into something else and get me to agree to an irrelevant point, thus somehow making you right.
I don’t play that game. So, I will not go into that sidebar. Race without heredity is stupid.
It also shows that you are unwilling to improve your opinions despite your statement above.
Why not just argue that Religion is about the real world and Gould is wrong?
I have no idea what the point was in this last post. Please expound.
I’ve heard about “Years of Living Dangerously.” I don’t feel the need to watch. I’ve read at least 4 full-length books on climate change. I doubt a TV show is going to give me much new info. /// There are alternative sources for everything and I agree, if you already are comfortable, read up on some other issue. Still, tv keeps you in touch with popular culture, good when thats the issue.
From last nights show: why is clean methane worse for the environment than dirty coal? Yes—methane is worse than co2 but methane when industrially fracked/collected and burned in cars is turned into co2. No methane is released into the atmosphere (sic==negligible==sic).
I have no idea what the point was in this last post. Please expound. //// All arguments proceed definitionally. You utilized that fact in the discussion of NOMA. When race is the issue though, you proclaim there is ONLY the scientific definitions…. and those scientific definitions that have been scrubbed of sociological import. Why the limitation?
When race can get you killed, doesn’t common sense tell you “something” is there? That something is definitional.
Its a nice parallel argument that believing in God doesn’t create one, but believing in races does exactly create race. Read you census forms. The US Gubment can’t be wrong.
No. You are incapable of reading what I write.
The only discussion I wish to have about race is a scientific one.
I do not feel that a non-scientific definition of race, i.e. one that does not include heredity as part of the definition of what race means, is a discussion worth wasting a single brain cell on.
No. You are incapable of reading what I write. /// I read everything you write===silly comment. What do you really mean to say? That I rather don’t agree…. or what? Need a dictionary??
The only discussion I wish to have about race is a scientific one. /// …while I am happy discussing BOTH. Yet, you criticize me for being limited and uninformed? Knock…. knock???????
I do not feel that a non-scientific definition of race, i.e. one that does not include heredity /// the sociological construct of race, the only relevant definition when you walked into the wrong part of town and are getting your ass kicked, is all about heredity. Again… what is it you are actually trying to say?….. I can “ONLY READ THE WORDS YOU USE.”
as part of the definition of what race means, is a discussion worth wasting a single brain cell on. /// Yes, quite obvious from your performance.
LIKE I SAID: you are so obviously wrong. And you think I am.
Thats a definitional impasse. See how that works?
Try again.
Bobbo,
“The sociological construct of race, the only relevant definition when you walked into the wrong part of town and are getting your ass kicked, is all about heredity.”
Bullshit, Bobbo!
You are including multiples when they aren’t needed.
Race is a trick by some to divide the masses and conquer them. Though, I think you already have that concept, however, it needs repeating because I think you’re missing the point in its entirety.
Yes, any one of us would have to defend ourselves if we were to walk in a neighborhood of racists, whether that of black, white, or even gospel pigs. It makes no fucking deference.
I think what Scott is trying to convey is that he has no real interests in racial constructs because he, as I, have lived it, and have an utter fucking hatred for that concept.
If all humanity is to get passed this utter nonsensical, hateful, spiteful and inane drivel, then we need to leave that bullshit out of the equation altogether.
We all agree that “racism” and further “race theory” is a great evil.
That doesn’t make it not real and something (emphasis => “thing”) to work against.
It is as stupid to deny race exists as it is to declare that brown skin describes/denotes anything other than brown skin. One color has no superiority over any other color======BUT COLORS DO EXIST and humans use color to discriminate against other people.
If you want to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and sing “La….la….la” and pretend you don’t see race at all, you are just irrelevant and most likely… a Liar. Well motivated but still a liar. Being scientist calls on one to deal with and aim for the truth.
The proper response: I don’t believe being a cracker means they are by God and Nature inbred half wits. They just have white skin and too often a vitamin deficiency. I say rather look to their character and notice your common humanity with them.
For my purposes, race is only a discussion point to illustrate the value/function of defining the terms we use and what a conditional argument is. If you want to define race, like intelligence or homosexuality and say it doesn’t exist because scientists can’t find the genes that establish it and ignore the fact that scientists have found the genes for skin color thats fine with me. Lets Discuss then how racism exists? Its the same discussion just pretending that the physical traits noticed don’t exist. If you want to define race as the genes that comprise the characteristics are not so significant as to warrant the associations made with them… we already agree on that, but thats fine with me. If you want to define race and say it doesn’t exist because it is the basis for hateful action, I am fine with that as well….. but the discussion regarding racism and what to do about it will continue without us.
This issue is too much like Global Warming. Opponents don’t want to have a carbon tax imposed on them so they deny human activity is changing the atmosphere and warming us all up. That denial is objectively clear to any who aren’t willfully blind. So this issue regarding race.
12 Million people were sent to the Gas Chambers because of race claims. Today in Africa, entire villages are wiped out based in part on race claims (I said in part==don’t get stupid).
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS exist. Most are good even necessary for our survivial. Some like race are bad and need to be done away with. As long as the social construct exists, it exists. When it no longer exists, it won’t. We are currently in the quantum state where the concept exists and works its way in our society/history/culture as it does.
Silly not to accept reality.
bobbo,
I have only sort of lived with racism. I’ve only been beaten up for my “race” just the one time. Though I’ve been insulted for it on several occasions. And, it’s a “race” that you won’t get 100% agreement even exists. It wasn’t in your list.
The thing is bobbo. You couldn’t tell my “race” by looking at me. You couldn’t pick me out of your line-up of klan members. I’d look just like them, assuming all or none of us had the Casper the Vicious Ghost costume on.
Your idea that you can pick out the races doesn’t work with your definition of race.
Yes, we can all agree that race is a great evil, and we all should work against it, and yes, color does exist. And you’ve defined my point that others use race for personal gain. I haven’t denied this, because I’ve suffered from it.
I don’t close my eyes, have fingers stuck in my ears nor say “la, la, la” because I don’t see any issue with those of other colors as many have. So please, don’t go and and find comfort on a boat of liars. It will neither of us well, as our discussion will not move in a forward motion, and that boat sinks.
I am just as railed in my position as as yourself, Bobbo.
Cracker is in reference to slavery when that whip hit a black mans back! As slavery was brought here to America, and they used the fucking blabblle for its justification!
I don’t look at whites as fucking “inbred half wits ” nor blacks as “subhuman” because the color of ones own skin has never bothered, nor have cause for concern with me. It may for yourself, but not for me. As I can only see beauty and treachery from all walks of life.
What I really mean to say is that you are incapable of understanding what I write.
No. You are not happy discussing both. You are upset if I will only discuss one. I criticize you for not taking other points of view into account, such as the worthlessness of the non-scientific question of race. What does race mean without heredity??!!? Not a fucking thing, that was rhetorical.
I think you are wrong for thinking that race exists. I agree that racism exists. But, you are still arguing that because you get your ass kicked for being perceived as some race or other that this means that those races actually exist.
They don’t.
But, this is not an impasse. This is a point where you refuse to consider my point at all.
What I really mean to say is that you are incapable of understanding what I write. //// You say that because I disagree…or I declare I don’t understand? How???
No. You are not happy discussing both. /// Ha, ha. I say: “I am happy discussing both as it is a broader more complete appreciation of the subject.” And YOU SAY: “I won’t waste a single brain cell discussing race outside of this one particular “scientific” definition I have found. I did and have discussed both sides. Once you define race as not existing…. what more CAN be said? Discussion can only continue by analyzing other definitions that you refuse to acknowledge and expressly state are not worthy of consideration.
You are upset if I will only discuss one. /// Yes that is a closer question. Its not that you will only discuss one, refuse to consider other definitions, BUT RATHER that you don’t appreciate that you are making a definitional decision without full appreciation for that. We can both discuss Goulds NOMA and determine that he is “wrong” but we don’t go further to say that NOMA does not exist. That same path is present regarding race…. but you don’t see it.
I criticize you for not taking other points of view into account, such as the worthlessness of the non-scientific question of race. /// I said right up front that race was “invalid” for most purposes and only used by evil race mongering racist half wits. But race mongering racits half wits (NOT Mr Gould of course) do exist and they define race and THOSE DEFINTIONS can get you killed. In my dictionary….that which can get you killed does exist.
What does race mean without heredity??!!? Not a fucking thing, that was rhetorical. /// Still doesn’t make any sense. Race is inherited and passed on, muddied up by mixing. This MEANS that race is genetically based.—-by definition.
I think you are wrong for thinking that race exists. I agree that racism exists. ///// So, how to resolve? What is the racism you agree exists based on? You say “not Race” but what else could it be===>definitionally? In the main, race is defined by skin color. Lots of exceptions and ambiguity and other half wit prejudices get mixed up in it too, but reality shows that Blacks get put in Jail more often than Whites. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN IF RACE DOES NOT EXIST?
I say But, you are still arguing that because you get your ass kicked for being perceived as some race or other that this means that those races actually exist.
They don’t. /// How can the perception of race be 100% accurate? eg==I tell you there is one black guy in the ballroom among 50 Whites and 50 Asians. Wanna bet you can find him?…… ummmm…. lets reverse that bet: “I” can find him because I’m not bat shit crazy.
But, this is not an impasse. This is a point where you refuse to consider my point at all. /// But I did and have repeatedly. With major quibbles, I will say that standard genetic researchers have decided not to dirty their hands with racial constructs. Makes good sense to me…. but brown skin is genetically transmitted. Its their choice with pros and con’s associated with it. More sensitive race related issues could follow “If” you were open to the discussion. But you aren’t, and claim that I have the closed mind. You do this while affirmatively stating that YOUR mind is closed while I affirmatively state I am open to it. Most such sensitive issues are race-LINKED but not statistically so strongly that any prejudice therefrom is warranted. Again…. another whole layer of sophistication denied you because you refuse to evaluate race by definitions that define it.
And that is why you just don’t get it.
Because, when I say I that I want to have a discussion that is only scientific, you say I am wrong. How can a statement that I feel a non-scientific discussion is not worth my time ever be wrong?
It’s a fucking opinion. It’s neither wrong nor right.
But, two things really are true:
1. You still refuse to provide an example of when you reconsidered and changed any opinion you had as a result of a debate.
2. You still believe racism proves the existence of race.
How the fuck can you still believe that but not believe that theism proves the existence of god?
All you keep arguing is that racism exists.
Alright, racism exists. I know that. You know that.
But, the definitions of race do not follow heredity. So, how can race exist in the absence of heredity? It’s not that geneticists don’t want to dirty their hands. It’s that there is no clear definition of what bloodlines constitute race. There is no sufficient genetic separation of populations. The things that are used to define races in other species simply do not exist in humans. It’s total fucking bullshit. That people kill each other over bullshit or make bad hiring decisions over bullshit or jail people over bullshit does not make the bullshit any less bullshit.
Race in humans does not exist.
Racism in humans exists.
God does not exist.
Theism exists in humans.
Same thing.
But, back to point one. Will you ever provide a single example of when you were not pig-headed?
BTW, yes. I am also failing to consider your opinion at all because in this case, I believe that opinion to be completely and utterly stupid.
But, I have already shown that I do consider your opinions at least some of the time and can even be swayed by them, as I was on this thread.
You still refuse to give me a single example of a case where you considered my opinion and actually changed your own. Statistically, it is just impossible that you are right 100% of the time.
So, what gives? Are you just simply pig-headed? Or, will you give an example of when you changed an opinion?
(Sorry for any insult to pigs.)
How can we argue over things we agree on? but I take each subject on its own merits and I’m not running a tab. I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that a word search on this forum would find me saying “I agree” on whatever issue I initially disagreed about….. or…. maybe just “thats a good point?” Surely I’ve said that.
But even if you are right, I’m not right because I take a position, I take a position that I analyze as correct AND I CHANGE IT for a better analysis when one is shown. Being shown I’m wrong is a great joy for me. By definition: I’ve LEARNED SOMETHING. (((XXXX—I complimented you twice at least for your idea of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” An analytical technique I often forget. Its a nice tool that opens up subjects that could be more thorny otherwise. JUST LIKE understanding what an issue being definitional means. Your refusal to incorporate reality, common sense, common experience, history, is an opportunity you deny your own intellect. Being flexible in defining terms is a TOOL. Silly to think tools don’t exist. ….. It rather makes you a tool yourself.))
I’ll say it again: it may appear that I am steadfast in some manner but most likely that will be because you/others don’t appreciate the CONDITIONAL rather than absolute arguments I make. Race is a good example of that. I SAY: if you define race as having a particular color skin, then you get racism and all kinds of idiot stuff. YOU SAY: race doesn’t exist.
blah, blah. Either you accept sociological constructs as relevant to the human species….. or you get your ass kicked. Funny… the reality of having your ass kicked usually teaches people reality ain’t a tea party.
Ego.
I said that watching tv was superior to trekking out in the wilds.
You said that could only be true if I had traveled enough for the tv to evoke memories.
I saw I was wrong and said:
March 6, 2014 at 09:46
Oh, that is an excellent point. Yes, having the context of having traveled must be a large part of why I find the travel, nature, eating shows so worthwhile.
Cool. I do remember that now that you mention it. As I said, I will now retract my prior statement. You’re right twice on one thread. But, you’re still not right about race.
OK bobbo, here’s a better analysis of racism. You ask “what else could it be===>definitionally?”
Appearance.
“I don’t like you because your hair is curly and your skin is darker than mine.” That’s racism without any race.
“I’m OK with you having darker skin than me because instead of curly hair you have a bindi on your forehead.” That’s racism without race.
“I don’t like you because your skin is medium dark and you have a thing on your head that looks funny in my culture.” That’s racism without race.
“I am OK with your medium dark skin because you don’t put anything weird on your head and your accent is Italian rather than Arabic.” That’s racism without any race.
“I’m OK with your medium dark skin and your Arabic decent because you speak Hebrew instead of Farsi or Arabic.” That’s racism without any race.
“I’m going to call you African-American to avoid offending you by calling you black … only to find out later that you are from the Caribbean.” That’s racism without any race.
“I’m going to call everyone on the continent of Africa ‘black’ because I’m too stupid to know that 95% of the genetic diversity of the human population of the world is in Africa and that the genetic differences between any two randomly chosen tribes in Africa are greater than the genetic differences between ‘Asians’ and ‘Caucasions’.” That’s racism without any race.
What else could it be?
Homo Stupidus doing what Homo Stupidus does best. Stupid shit.
So, believe in race if you like. Pretend it exists. I’ll call you a racist (i.e. one who believes in race in humans) the same way I will call someone who believes in god a theist. I hope that doesn’t offend you any more than a theist should be offended by being labeled based on their belief.
Does that about answer your question?
What I really mean to say is that you are incapable of understanding what I write. //// You say that because I disagree…or I declare I don’t understand? How???
Because, when I say I that I want to have a discussion that is only scientific, you say I am wrong. =====No, from memory I only said your notion that race can only be defined by the one definition you chose to use was wrong. Just as I proved by discussing race from a sociological viewpoint. You do get too sloppy in the precision of the words you use. Words have meaning. Using the wrong word results in bad ideas. And if my memory is wrong…. correct the record according to above. I crammed a stick up my butt and found one example of me changing my mind during our discussions (see what I hope is just above?). I challenge you to copy and paste in similar manner where I ever said anything close to you are wrong for wanting to discuss race only from a scientific viewpoint (sic!)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How can a statement that I feel a non-scientific discussion is not worth my time ever be wrong?
It’s a fucking opinion. It’s neither wrong nor right. ///// I can agree or disagree depending on where I put the emphasis. Does hover all around getting your ass kicked, so its easily held in abeyance.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But, two things really are true:
1. You still refuse to provide an example of when you reconsidered and changed any opinion you had as a result of a debate. //// See Above. You made me do it…… I didn’t want to do it……….. you made me ……. (love you). Good tune, wrong emotion!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
2. You still believe racism proves the existence of race. //// Exactly so. Not even that hard a trick. The trick is to maintain hysterical blindness on the issue as you do.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How the fuck can you still believe that but not believe that theism proves the existence of god? //// Various arguments. You can’t go into a room and point god out. You can go into a room and point out the races with very high accuracy. Why can’t you accept this real world daily common experience as the answer to your word play?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All you keep arguing is that racism exists. /// No. RACE EXISTS===>AS DEFINED. Its a sociological construct. Part of the conscious mind that remains such a mystery…. but the mind exists even though science doesn’t admit to its bits and pieces.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alright, racism exists. I know that. You know that.
But, the definitions of race do not follow heredity. So, how can race exist in the absence of heredity? It’s not that geneticists don’t want to dirty their hands. It’s that there is no clear definition of what bloodlines constitute race. //// You are babbling. Race is primarily about skin color. Clearly defined: black, white, yellow, aboriginal. Skin color is purely genealogical and inherited. You can go super racists and go further with whites further divided up for future racism: Blond Hair and Blue Eyes always a favorite. Blond Hair and Blue Eyes===controlled by genes.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There is no sufficient genetic separation of populations. /// Yes, there is. The fact is races used to be “more pure” but the races are and will further intermix causing the number of ambiguities to increases. There will still be races for generations to come.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The things that are used to define races in other species simply do not exist in humans. /// I don’t know what you mean. In other species, race is called “breeds” and there a many color based breeds in other species. Color actually is part of species differentiation and used in field guides to identify different species. Doesn’t make a Blue Jay better than a Stellar’s Jay…. but the color is genetic….blah, blah.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It’s total fucking bullshit. /// Race is bullshit for most purposes. Bullshit exists. It stinks but you can’t stink if you don’t exist.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That people kill each other over bullshit or make bad hiring decisions over bullshit or jail people over bullshit does not make the bullshit any less bullshit. /// But BS exists. In context—its a human construct made up by observing the physical world.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Race in humans does not exist.
Racism in humans exists.
God does not exist.
Theism exists in humans.
Same thing. //// Makes a point ONLY IF everything that people believe in is invalid. I believe that the Earth and Stars exist. I can point to them and name them and teach others to do the same. Does the Earth and stars not exist because I believe in them or is some other mechanism for such proof exist? As stated: That Nigger Clayton Bigsby won’t last long when the hoods are taken off at the KKK Rally. That is NOT like a belief in God. and I cringed a bit at the N-word. I left it in thinking you might too. Racism is based on “something” that is quite consistent and deep rooted.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But, back to point one. Will you ever provide a single example of when you were not pig-headed? /// Done. I’m sure you want something more dramatic, but for that to occur, I’d have to be like you and require others to force a new opinion on me. Instead, I change opinion before I argue my point.
You just don’t get it Scotty:
“OK bobbo, here’s a better analysis of racism. You ask “what else could it be===>definitionally?”
Appearance.
“I don’t like you because your hair is curly and your skin is darker than mine.” That’s racism without any race. /// If enough people think that curly hair is a race, then BY DEFINITION….IT IS!!! Just like darker skin.
Thats the whole point.
No. I really genuinely can’t do this with any reliability. Sorry.
And, the social definitions of race do vary greatly. And, without heredity, they violate the rules of science, which I am truly incapable of ignoring on such a topic.
I simply cannot and will not ever accept any definition of race that does not include heredity. And, the social one most certainly does not.
So, why can’t I accept your answer? Because I can’t ignore science.
Why can’t you accept that God exists, perhaps as a social construct, based on 3.3 billion people who claim that he does? Probably the same reason.
There is no scientific evidence of either.
Please give it up bobbo and stop bringing it up. Just accept that I can’t handle the cognitive dissonance required to ignore science while discussing what a bunch of bigoted people believe as evidence.
To sum up my last post more succinctly, the beliefs of a bunch of bigots does not scientific evidence make.
I think the wiki states both of our positions better than we do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29
I don’t recall our using it before, but how did we miss it?
I’m sure you can, through confirmation bias, point to a paragraph that makes the case for your opinion. My confirmation bias points me at this paragraph that states my problem with race quite well, emphasis mine.
In no particular order, here are some other statements that I feel make the concept of race utterly non-existent in any real sense.
??!!? If races exist, how can a person or family change their race over time, even without interbreeding?
This last large parapgraph that I’ll quote for now is exactly why I can’t pick out people of different races with any degree of reliability. Similarly, interbreeding between human populations goes back so far that most people of European descent have a bit of neanderthal in them.
BTW, if you claimed that all members of the homo genus were so closely related as to be a single species, then I would agree that Neanderthal, Ergaster, Denisovan, Habilis, Erectus, etc., were all races, even though there’s probably a bit of neaderDNA in me.
Hey, if you can’t pick Clayton Bigsby out of a crowd of KKK’ers, then what can you see that is right in front of you? By statement: the entire wiki that you Cherry Pick to support your position.
Contra: How about the FIRST sentence restated many times thereafter: “Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.” ///// You can “disagree” with that statement, but don’t say it doesn’t exist. And don’t say that many people don’t believe and act on it. And in so doing, it exists with a precision and exactitude that Theism does not possess.
Lather, rinse, repeat until plain English becomes clear to you.
You just don’t get it. But what is funny is you go further and call me limited and pig headed. Whereas, the demonstrated truth right in front of you is………………….
I would warn you to be careful where you walk, but you already are. Your reptile brain stem will protect you even as your Big Brain causes all kinds of silliness to pour forth.
Amusing…… its right “there.” Just look. Its not even close…. you’ve got a huge blind spot.
Here is another cut at the issue. Who knows what word combo will provide illumination?
Theism doesn’t create God. True. But does God exist or not? How do you determine whether God exists or not? Seems to me you have to start by defining what God is? Then, test it.
Racism doesn’t create a race. True. But does Race exist or not? How do you determine whether Race exists or not? Seems to me you have to start by defining what Race is? Then, test it.
Sexism doesn’t create the sexes. True. But do the Sexes exist or not? How do you determine whether the Sexes exist or not? Seems to me you have to start by defining what a Sex is? Then, test it.
In all these cases, you don’t start by defining the issue in question as not existing. You give a definition and see if/how it works.
Easy Peasy.
Seems to me you look for scientific evidence.
There is none for any god.
There is none for any viable definition of race.
There is scientific evidence that sexes exist. There is even scientific evidence that the number can be greater than two, as in fungi.
In all cases, you look for the scientific evidence.
No. You can’t begin any scientific inquiry before you define what you are talking about.
I define God as the living person of Charlize Theron. I can prove she exists. Other definitions might fail but mine works. Boy, would I like to test my definition!
Yup. So, you go to the scientific definition. But, of course, that’s just the way the people of my “race”, those who follow science, think.
I have heard the name Charlize Theron. I doubt I could pick her out of a line-up of Clayton Bigsbys either. I’d need to see some scientific evidence before I concede that either of them exist.
No, as stated ad vomitorium: you need to define God then test it. I say my definition of God is Charlize Theron. I can show you Charlize Theron. Then you get a panel of qualified scientists to determine if who I present is Charlize Theron. In fact, a minyon is required because that is how humans work.
Same with Race. I say my definition is skin color. I can show you people with different skin colors. A minyon will agree that the colors are as described. Where no agreement exists, we have ambiguity and race is thrown out or regulated in other ways.
None of this established that Charlize or the Races have any other characteristic than the one defined.
Kinda like separate Magisteria!
I couldn’t pick Clayton Bigsby out of a line-up of Clayton Bigsbys. Who is Clayton Bigsby?
Regarding that first sentence, that is exactly why I, and all scientists, claim that race does not exist in humans. We are all the same species and subspecies. To the extent that race exists in humans, there is exactly one.
When I read that FIRST sentence, it parses out as semantically null. So vague are the definitions and possible definitions of race as to be meaningless.
For example bobbo, what is my race? Am I Caucasian this week? Or, am I Jewish, that odd one that qualifies some of the time as a religion and some of the time as a race? But, given the definition you cite, I could be any of many races at once. I am the race Caucasian. I am the race Jewish. I am the race atheist. I am the race eastern European. I am the race Arabic (Semetic). Oooh. Anatomy counts. I am the race male (though I find that offensive and prefer Penised American). I am the race bipedal. I am the race with binocular vision. Wait!! There’s more. Social affiliation counts. I am the race environmentalist. I am the race liberal. I am the race geek. I am the race English speakers. I am the race members of the American Museum of Natural History. I am the race Prius owner. I am the race Science lecture attendee.
This definition of race says that anytime I can get a minyan together who agree, or possibly a minyan wouldn’t even be required, I can redefine all the races of the world. Go ahead and tell me which of the above are real races and which are not. Good luck. You won’t 100% agreement on several of them.
But, all of them meet the definition.
It’s fucking ridiculous. And, ridiculous is not enjoying it.
Your race could well be ambiguous. As the gray grows and out numbers the black, white, red, yellow, aboriginal, Inuit, Aryan, High Caste, Low Caste and on and on, I have no doubt that race will stop being a social construct and then we will only be left with all the other “isms” that take up so much of our imagination.
Won’t that be a great day? One less stupid ism to deal with?…..
Agreed, Mr Bobbo.
Bad Dog: I’ve been saying the same thing for 20 posts in a row, and you disagreed with me. I say the same thing the 21st time and you change now agreeing with me.
What changed? Maybe your insight can move Scotty along? ((Course I do hope you don’t change again? Bad Dogs are like that.))
No, I’m not a bad dog per say I just want the racial bullshit that has plagued our world for so long (to just fucking end)!
And also, I haven’t had the time to go through all the comments to even have noticed 20 references. Sorry for that.
And thanks, I think?
Cerberus
Cerebus… I find word play to be fun, even if some times there is no basis for it. We are all mostly in agreement. And when that is the case, we disagree on the minutiae. How one confronts racism is a matter of choice. Some choices are more effective than others and those choices change in effectiveness over time.
Right now, arguing that races don’t exist has about zero effectiveness in my evaluation. Its too esoteric and science based in a world where 70% of people believe in Angels and Fairies.
It comes down to being pragmatic and existential in my outlook—and not thinking something “is” scientific just because I call it so.
Good points, Mr Bobbo. Very pragmatic too. Both you and Mr Scott always do have great intellectual points to share. Well done.
bobbo,
You missed my point. It’s not that my “race” is “grey”. I’m “purebred” whatever the hell that means. As far as I know, I’m Jewish back to the tribe of Yehuda. All of my grandparents and great grandparents were Jewish. And, in the Jewish “race” there was little intermarriage prior to the 20th century. So, I’m not “grey”.
I am all of the races I listed.
Please tell me why you think a definition of race that includes liberal as a race or, for those who actually join clubs, chess club members would be a race.
It’s not the intermarriage that makes this definition of race stupid, in my not so humble opinion. It’s the definition itself that is so amorphous that anything can be used as a race. It’s so amorphous that today you will not find widespread agreement on what my race is.
Would you call me Caucasian?
Would you cal me Jewish?
Would you call me a Semite?
Would you call me a Hebrew?
Would you call me an Arab?
Would you say my race is geek? If not, why not?
Would you say my race is blogger? If not, why not?
Some people only consider Jewish to be a religion, including many Jews. Some people consider it to be a race. Many people in the world would want to kill me just for being Jewish … if they could tell somehow. I don’t “look Jewish” whatever the fuck that means. And, I don’t wear even a yarmulke to tell everyone I’m Jewish and to hide my bald spot.
Any and all of these and my list above all meet the definition of race. It’s not an issue of interbreeding. It’s an issue with the definition being worse than any definition of pornography.
Scotty—you are a programmer or have those skills? I do not. If I sat down with you and tried to act like a programmer you would see through me in seconds. Because you KNOW, and I don’t. At least with programming, I also KNOW I don’t know.
You continue to not apply a simple idea. You have to define the words/terms/ideas you use before you can effectively begin to think about much less argue a position. You keep jumping to conclusions without doing any of the necessary preparation.
On this issue of race, that error is GLARING.
After 18 times of me saying it and showing it, you still want to say that you are a “pure bred” whatever. Do you recognize that is because that is the way YOU are defining that status?
By my definition of race, you are simply and only white. But you are actually using the first sentence from the Wiki entry –you are picking a religious/ethnic category to call yourself pure. ITS ALL DEFINITIONAL!!!!!! Please cool your ramjets, slow down, and recognize this simple fact of the matter.
If I define race as a “superior combination of genes that results in moral, physical, and intellectual attributes that justifies special privileges in society” then science can say: “We can’t establish that from genetic analysis.”
But if I say, race is based on the color of the skin and give the hexadecimal color code for the shades that comprise those colors, Science can then say: “Yep, we can measure that and explain the genetics that produces it.” Race by that definition does exist.
ITS ALL DEFINITIONAL…… and please note the conditional if/then approach I have taken. As a matter of fact===you don’t know what I think about race because you refuse to understand that I think race is relevant or not depending on what issue is being discussed and how you define the term.
Sidebar: years ago I became possessed of the idea that race was purely sociological and invalid in its application and use and I also argued as you do now that it is not a valid genetically based scientific notion. As I argued this position, it became clear to me that I needed a broader understanding because when people do get hurt because of their perceived race, then “something” is going on. Recharacterizing the issue as racism but not race does simply ignore that race is perceived quite easily and uniformly by humans. Wishful thinking or a lie to say otherwise. Don’t confuse the simple ability to define a race as skin color with any other notions that usually come immediately with such term. I never have, yet that is what is driving your animus. I would think you could get this when I define God as Charlize Theron? How can the role of “defining your terms” be any more clear, simple==and meaningless if one choose such a definition? Thats meant to be humorous but instructive as well. Its all about how you define your terms.
Yes. USE THE DICTIONARY. It helps objectify your own thinking and clear out the waste scrub of emotions. I said the Wiki stated both of our positions better than we did. You took that and cherry picked it for YOUR own definition RATHER THAN try to balance that with “the other” definitional elements that would give you a larger view. Thats fine if you want to be an advocate for a particular position. I want to have the deepest most meaningful understanding of race as I am capable of determining. Only using half of what wiki presented is by definition not the fullest understanding possible.
It strikes me in parallel construction, that indeed there can be “race” but no racism. Another idea to define/consider rather than just assume without analysis whatever attributes one wishes?
Thinking can be trained. Never too late to start.
yes,
race is ambiguous..
it used to be based on nation you were born..
Then on your beliefs..
Then your color..
Then on Anything they could point out that Made you different, in ANY way shape or form..
Like watching the news and they mention “Its SOCIALISM”, but is that a BAD THING?
Lets see..
I would be..
A Nazi, Custer killing, Tree loving, Naturalistic, Chistian, Catholic, Morman, White, hinduist…and there are many more Additions to it..
Labeling a person under 1 thought/ideal/concept/PAST/… Is TOTALLY asinine..
Its also strange to GROUP people under only 2 thoughts or ideals..republican/democrat…
If you did a FULL study of the religious groups. I will bet, that 80% would FAIL to be religious under the founding ideals.
The one thing that GETS my goat..is the IDEA, that GOD will forgive you at your death, for any inequities you have had int he past. WHICH means you can be a BASTARD, all your life and be forgiven when you are on the death bed..
I cant believe in any religion that gives that option.
there is a prayer, that says, “on Earth as it is in Heaven..” If heaven is as BAD as we have made this world…(fill in your own comment)
You are on to one of my beefs with God too although I tack a different tack. And all knowing, powerful, good entity that is arranging for an ETERNITY for us in the hereafter would I think “by definition” have to all all souls into heaven as evil as they might be and even if they don’t repent. He made us after all and we do exactly what he designed us to do. If that is not the result, then he is not a God worthy of worship and is just a tyrant to be opposed as all tyrants are.
Just issue number 83 of 46,924 other issues in the Bible that shows it to be a babble.
Wow. I think my brain, at least typing, is falling apart. I type words out of order as my brain is thinking ahead. First line: “I tack a different tack” should be “I TAKE a different tack.” Reminds me of my troubles in High School Debate Class. I could hardly speak. I wasn’t scared or uncertain but on every point raised in an active debate, I wanted to respond with 3 different answers and they all jumbled in my mind… just as I am still typing. I think drugs would have been good for me then.
Line 2–And should be An==pure muscle memory while typing?
Line 3–all all should be to ALLOW all souls. I don’t think that was a typo, I think my mind was racing ahead.
Some kind of Tourettes? I must do better.
What the hell?
Bobbo,
“An all knowing, powerful, god entity that is arranging for an ETERNITY for us in the afterlife would I think “by definition” have to allow all souls into heaven as evil as they might be and even if they don’t repent. He made us after all and we do exactly what he designed us to do. If that is not the result, then he is not a God worthy of worship and is just a tyrant to be opposed as all tyrants are.”
Now I see why you argue in favor of total genetic control.
Was this a surname and testament by the great apostle, Bobbo? Ha!
Sorry my right head hasn’t been corporation lately, but he does have a valid point.
Does this mean we’re a bad dog?
Now I see why you argue in favor of total genetic control. /// I don’t. Please copy and paste the words that you think mean that.
Was this a surname and testament by the great apostle, Bobbo? Ha! /// No, its my “belief” in what an all loving, powerful, and good God would have to do. Even then, I would not worship him, but he might be a good buddy.
Sorry my right head hasn’t been corporation lately, but he does have a valid point. /// Who ECA? Yes, he has a similar issue but approaches it with different a priori assumptions. A kind of definition if you will.
Does this mean we’re a bad dog? /// Got a mouse in your pocket? In my mind, such determination is totally dependent on what you copy and paste.
(Given a time machine, where would you go .)
Bobbo, in reply to Scott on 4/6/14 @ 11:32 said:
“I’m not a geneticist, so I’m casting on basics. OBVIOUSLY there is 100% controlled by genes. It’s definitional. Take 100% genetic behavior and “add” a song to it. Has the mating behavior turned into a learned behavior?”
Yes, in matters of song. As that was a learned behavior.
“When I was in school, it was generally thought that humans were mostly about nurture. Lots of studies since then, genome decoded and spliced. Genes coming on strong. Always a mix of the two but it’s only a failure to analysis that strikes a balance of 50/50.”
This is where we will agree to disagree. The song was learned while procreation is not. While I do recognize that genes play a big part of our structure, however, it does not play the biggest part in thought.
As I’ve said before, I’m very much in line with an instinctual trait of impulsive behavior that has gotten me in plentiful trouble in my past, but I have since changed. I would rob people and fight them at the drop of a hat because I had no one in my life that gave even an ounce of love or respect for me. I was alone without any one for guidance in my upbringing because I was completely rejected by my own family for not excepting their book of fairy tails. And for that I was thrown out. But I’m glad that it happened, and if given the chance to change my early life, I wouldn’t…. Because I regard this past as the best thing that ever happened to me. My family is rather large, but we don’t talk, because my hatred for them is absolute. With the exception of one brother. We’ve always been very close.
The impulse is still there, but I control it without it controlling me. Else I’d be in jail even more than I have been.
And twins is the perfect example, too. I know of one that was raised by her father in Texas, and the other was raised by her mother in California. And both are like day and night, as they cannot stand to be in the same room with each other.
50/50 for me.
Good Morning Cerberus
I can tell you are responding to something and advocating a position, but I do have to guess and fill in just bit? If this is the copy/paste I asked for to show that I said genetics controlled everything, this is a good attempt but off point? Your first comment came up in a discussion of the genetic component of racial characteristics. I don’t think that certain behavior in birds applies at all.
Twin studies are very interesting. I’d want to update my knowledge base but from what I used to know twins show that a lot of behavior has very strong genetic links as twins more often that siblings and more often than random matches share quite a bit of behavior, attitude, character, interests, hobbies and so forth. As you posted, its not every twin–just more than average so that the genetic link is established.
My own family was small and my parents didn’t “force” or expect any set of beliefs from us….. other than don’t have the neighbors complain about us or get brought home by the police. No doubt, I think that because I don’t recognize the beliefs that they gave me which I consider just natural? They were both non practicing protestants and did not force religion on us. I don’t think they would have cared if we became born again…. but who knows?
At some point in time though, the process of growing up means to separate ourselves from our families and to accept or reject them based on the values we uphold. Sad when families fall out like that as there is only one per individual. Luckily, we can find most of such needs in other willing and more compatible people.
ECA,
“It’s also strang to group people under only 2 thoughts or ideals,..republican/democrat..”
It’s not strange at all. Both parties have total control, and wish to keep it that way. They have all their beloved entertainment media industry to blanket the country in blindness…. And the additional bonus? They make laws so no real journalists can investigate them. That’s how they stay in power…. Wouldn’t want another party or independent to spoil the game, would they? NoooooOOOOOoooo!
Those fuckers.
And agreed. The religious have committed utter failur regarding its founding principles. And that is also proof of no desert war god.
Regarding forgiveness on the deathbed . That their supposed “get into heaven free card.” But wait until they find out it doesn’t work. Ha!
bobbo,
It amazes me the level of cognitive dissonance with which you can live. Do you not read what you type?
Then you say
Well, I strongly disagreed with your definition of race numerous times already. Then you posted the one from the wiki. That became your definition for this part of the argument.
When I showed why that definition is also stupid, you go back to your other definition.
As sole moderator of this blog, I am going to make a command decision that the following paragraph is a valid discussion on this topic, and not a ridiculous comparison, and is thus not subject to Godwin’s Law.
The problem is, if racism defines race, then Jewish is a race. So is Semite. So is Arab. But, you state that all of these are simply white. And yet, six million white people were killed by a man who felt that Jewish was a race. Is that not enough racism to define a race? The KKK still agrees with Adolf on this subject. So did my fellow sixth grader who beat me up for being a “Jew Bastard” despite the fact that you call us both white.
So, which is it bobbo? Does racism prove the existence of race? Or, are you the only one in the world who gets to decide what races exist?
Each point has been made and countered before. I will respond to each if you ask me to.
Meanwhile, I took the tack of saying that I know you are wrong as a matter of my own expertise when you crossed the line and stated you would not be able to pick out a black man in a crowd of whites and Asians.
On this issue of race, you have no credibility.
“This issue of race” is too narrow. Its is just one example of you not being able to deal with conditional statements. aka: You don’t get it. Something I thought programmers would be pretty comfortable with.
“IF x is higher than 5, THEN enter Yes.”
That statement says NOTHING about the value of x. It only establishes a conditional relationship for other purposes.
“IF your skin color is #000000 under Hexadecimal comparison, THEN enter Black.” This says nothing about other characteristic of skin color other than if it is black, then it is IDENTIFIABLE as black. In the current context, that is the definition and fact of race.
Racism (not yet defined) comes in after for other defined purposes.
Please tell me when you think I said I couldn’t pick a black man out of a crowd of whites and Asians.
What the wiki page you cited said though is that there is a range of colors, clines. So, if you picked a darker white person and a lighter black person, I might not be able to tell. This is because there really is no defining level of melanin that makes someone black.
A friend in college had his fiance break up with him when her parents applied pressure. He was lilly white, whatever that means. It looked like he’d sunburn easily. His skin was very pale.
His mother was black.
His fiance’s parents couldn’t deal with the possibility of black grandchildren and applied enough pressure to break up the relationship. Could I have pegged him as black? Hell no!
But, that’s just interbreeding, which you acknowledge.
What you fail to realize is that there are some very dark skinned “white people” and some very light skinned “black people”.
You also fail to recognize that if racism creates race then more races exist.
I am not always white. It depends whom you ask. Sometimes, I’m Hebrew/Jewish. Sometimes, I’m Semetic. Legitimately, all Hebrews are nomadic Arabs, by race, hence the Jewish marriage contract (the ketuba) being written in ancient Aramaic.
So, when you say that race is a social construct, you must acknowledge that in different social groups, the races are different. And, in groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, my race is Jewish (or probably kike or hebe).
Could you pick the Jews out of a lineup of Caucasians and Jews and Arabs? I bet not, at least not without costumes to guide you.
Personally, I would not be able to accurately tell “black”, whatever the hell that means, from Indian or Australian Aboriginal, or Caribbean. Oh wait, for some reason, you classify Caribbean as black, don’t you? Why? They’re not African.
I also couldn’t accurately classify Arab from White from Israeli/Jewish from Mediterranean (Caucasian).
In various contexts, all of these are genuinely valid races precisely because, as you repeatedly and wrong-headedly point out, race is a social construct.
As long as you stick to that definition, no. I certainly cannot accurately classify people into races by appearance. No one can. The races are not fixed. You say it’s mostly skin color. But, it isn’t. There is a huge range of skin color you lump as white while others make more distinctions. There is a huge range of dark skin tones with a lot of overlap, some of which you call black and some of which you do not.
You’re just flat dead wrong on this booboo.
If race is a social construct, there is no fixed set of races. You’re just full of shit for thinking that you get to define the set and make the rules.
You don’t get it Scotty. If….. Then.
Can you pick an obviously black man out of a crowd of obviously white men…. or not?
Marbles?
What a stupid question!
You said you could reliably pick white from black. Can you pick a light skinned black man from a group of dark skinned white men?
Probably not. I also can’t multiply 5670 by 3468 in my head. Does that mean that math does not exist?
You are being obstinate and dishonest mostly just with yourself.
Your answer by immediate implication admits you can tell blacks from whites. How did you do that except by being able to tell skin color apart? IF——you use that degree of skin color to define races, THEN ——- you have that definitional basis for race identification.
Thereafter, some will argue for a whole raft of reasons that blacks are better than whites, or vice versa, or anything else you want to hang on that framework. Some will be valid, history teaches that most won’t be.
Next?
No. You said you could accurately classify people into white and black. I claim that your percentage would have too many mistakes to be useful.
I also claim you are not following your own definitions. If race is a social construct, there are races like Jewish and Arab, which you would probably fail to identify as often as by guessing at random.
If A then B.
If race is socially constructed, my own race is ambiguous.
Perhaps that’s why I think race is a stupid and non-existent concept in humans.
No. You said you could accurately classify people into white and black. I claim that your percentage would have too many mistakes to be useful. //// Yes, and yet millions were enslaved on cotton plantations in the South. How did that happen given your estimate of accuracy?
I also claim you are not following your own definitions. If race is a social construct, there are races like Jewish and Arab. /// Of course they are. If you can’t deal with the simplest of definitions, there is no reason to discuss the more ambiguous.
If A then B. /// Yep. A construct. Has nothing to do with the truth, just the logical rules that are defined and applied.
If race is socially constructed, my own race is ambiguous. /// No doubt.
Perhaps that’s why I think race is a stupid /// of course it is.
and non-existent concept in humans. /// ?
It’s the complex that renders the simple meaningless in this case, IMNSHO and in the not so humble opinion of a whole shitload of scientists.
Hello, Mr Scott.
I would like to direct your attention to response from Mr Bobbo that I think you’ll find quite interesting.
(Given a time machine, when would you go.)
His reply to me ((Cerberus)) on 4/5/14 @ 12:14 should give you a better scope on his position.
Cerberus,
Of course, you do follow them, just not in accordance with what our system teaches, and I do respect that, just a little confusing is-all.
Reply, Bobbo.
Copy and paste an example when you spot this activity. ((((” I can make an “excuse” on the flip of a dime.”))))
Enough said
Good one Cerberus. What do you think I was actually saying?
I was JOKING. Of course, I have the mental flexibility to make a false argument for the fun of it. That same ability also allows me to make deeper most honest evaluation of a subject as well.
Do you think I was ever a cocaine addict?
Regarding the addiction:
No., not ever. But when doing so, you lend yourself no credibility either.
How is there lack of credibility when you can tell it is a joke? Being able to joke about a subject actually lends credibility.
Know what I mean?
Mr Bobbo.
I reflected on my own past…
…a past in which I don’t normally discuss. But I was willing to share my past to make a valid point. …
And perhaps I was wrong in doing so.
I don’t know what you mean.
Communication…. such a difficult art form.
I note 4 new posts on this thread. So far, no email notice of same. I just keep updating my browser page on point.
Email notice finally got thru, but it skipped 3 postings providing only Cerebus’ ambiguous statement.
Expanding on my lack of connection….bringing one’s own past or experiences into a conversation can add depth and insight, or just a good or bad feeling in recalling it and writing it down. On balance, probably a good thing to do for ourselves…. even if no one else gets it, supports it, or understands it.
What is life for……. anyway?
Yes Cerberus. That says it beautifully. Thanks!
Yes blowbo. I did think you were a cocaine addict. If you’re now saying that was a joke, despite your seeming honesty when saying it, I have no idea what else in your life is false, including your take on race.
Two of us here opened up in very personal ways. The third among us made a joke out of it.
That’s an awful lot of disrespect for those of us who have opened up personally. In the future, while I would certainly not ask you to share anything you’re not comfortable sharing, if you are not going to open up when others do, please remain silent.
On other threads on this blog, others have done so as well, including Expulsion of Gods. I would ask that if you are going to open up, do so. If not, fine. But, don’t make a joke out of those of us who do.
Thanks.
You’re welcome, Mr Scott.
The hole point that Mr Blowbo (I do like the pun btw) is that a persons own reputation is at stake when one lies to others.
If he has no wish in providing information about his nature, that’s fine, then say nothing. But if one lies about such things, and are caught , then others will not have any value for their standing on any given subject whatsoever.
As I’ve said before, … Truth means everything.
I was nearly accused by Blowbo of lying, but now I suggest he take a good look in a mirror.
The hole point … implying Blowbblow is a hole of some form …. Hmmm … what kind of hole? Oh!! I get it.
Some of the time, yes. Mr. Blowbo acts like an asshole.* Like when he brings up a dead argument that he lost long ago because he thinks maybe he can win it this time. Then, when his new argument fails so he reverts to the same old same old again. And, it fails again. So, he just declares victory.
But, as he pointed out, sometimes he’s capable of thought and even of changing his mind. Let’s see what he thinks now that still more evidence in the race argument has not gone his way.
* I’m trying to avoid name calling by accusing him of acting like an asshole rather than calling him one. I hope he notices the difference. Just in case, I added this ass-sterisk, which looks like Vonnegut’s drawing of an asshole.
I really do enjoy your take on things, Mr Scott. And, you seemed to answer that question.
The first paragraph here is pretty good:
http://oakes.ucsc.edu/academics/Core%20Course/oakes-core-awards-2012/laura-flores.html
I was a bit jarred by the statement that men and women are social constructs. New idea I keep forgetting that “gender” is different from sex. Words.
We think with words. Words are all a construct.
Just watching “All In” with Chris Hayes. (May 22, 2014 on MSNBC) at 40 min in, they were talking on our exact subject. On black said race was a social construct that didn’t mean much be we needed to get comfortable with color discrimination so that we could defeat racism. The black surgeon said he doesn’t see race when he cuts into a brain. Hayes said thats fine but Chicago used race to target blacks for housing/finanacial discrimination to their great injury. Black surgeon said I’m not saying that race doesn’t exist, just that it doesn’t mean much.
Back and forth. food for thought when a brain surgeon can’t keep his definitions straight. He too can tell a black tumor from white tissue but can’t pick a black man out in a crowd?
Interesting link blowbo.
No. Some of us fight back against the stupidity. Some of us argue for it. Which one are you doing?
Interesting. That reminds me of a comment by a friend’s father. He’s long since deceased, and was when I heard the comment from my friend. He was born Jewish but was an atheist. He told his wife, born a Presbyterian, when she asked if he still considered himself Jewish, that he would be a Jew until the last anti-Semite was dead.
So, it is racism that creates that thing you call race. But, it doesn’t exist in reality. As a social construct, it is not a real thing.
We may need to use counter-racism, which is itself a form of racism to fix the problems of racism, such as affirmative action. But, if the racism can ever be driven away, the races will go with it, precisely because they are imaginary, just like God.
Races in humans are a product of human imagination … like angels … like unicorns … like faeries and sprites … like fire-breathing dragons … and like a whole bunch of other things even you, blowbo, would agree are not real.
Mr Bobbo, asked :
“What is life for……
Anyway?”
In my humble opinion:
In this universe of causality it really has no meaning, no purpose, with no loving creator that will take care of us, nor guide us, or save us….
…it just is.
But we give it our meaning, our purpose, even if it has none. While I do see this in my eye of reflection that other may be indifferent too, but I still think that love, kindness and respect for others is a good stance to have in life if we are to make any progressiveness for mankind’s own future. Forget religion.
And so, in spite of what has just transpired, I like you, Mr Bobbo. And value your friendship. Just as I value that of Mr Scott’s, or even others on this blog.
So yes, I care for you!
Meaning defined.
Scotty: Yes blowbo. I did think you were a cocaine addict. //// I think you are joking now. I could be wrong, but I don’t think you are so stupid to think I was an addict. Perhaps “tried it” or anything else… but not an addict. Like everyone else, I assume other know I am great!
Scotty: I have no idea what else in your life is false, including your take on race.//// If context does not provide the most likely understanding, then ask directly.
Scotty: The third among us made a joke out of it. /// No, not “out” of it but rather “with reference to” it. As stated, the ability to find humor shows greater comfort, knowledge, and willingness to change on an issue. Very few in a bald statement would say that “being humorless” is a good way to proceed in life.
Bad Dog: If he has no wish in providing information about his nature, that’s fine, then say nothing. /// Must I now add “humor finding raconteur to my nom de flame?
Worse Dog: I was nearly accused by Blowbo of lying, but now I suggest he take a good look in a mirror. //// A request for specificity about what you are talking about is not nearly accusing you of anything. What it is, is not jumping to a conclusion without seeking clarity. Yes, you can look at me for that.
Scotty: Like when he brings up a dead argument that he lost long ago because he thinks maybe he can win it this time. /// In context, it was you who was making reference to “past arguments” to support your own position illogically that you must be right because you can’t always be wrong as evidenced by your claim that I have never admitted I was wrong. A bit convoluted, but this has been a long and developing thread. It was at YOUR initiation that I invited YOU to bring up any subject you wished to support your position. You declined so I brought up the issue of race for as stated, and still true: YOU ARE SO OBVIOUSLY WRONG. On that, more to follow below.
Scotty: No. Some of us fight back against the stupidity. Some of us argue for it. Which one are you doing? /// If you are fighting against any particular social construct, the article/link is making the point that you are still part of the social construct. Just like Negroes in Chained Bondage…. you disagree with the construct…. but are in chains nonetheless. More powerful evidence providing the proof of social context cannot be found. You think you avoid this evidence by calling it racism, but that is a fail. Easier to do if you are not in chains. But when you find yourself in those very chains………..
Scotty’s Friends Father: he would be a Jew until the last anti-Semite was dead.//// Exactly so. Smart man. He understood what a social construct is.
Scotty: So, it is racism that creates that thing you call race. But, it doesn’t exist in reality. As a social construct, it is not a real thing. /// Racism doesn’t exist in reality any more than those chains around your neck that have you picking cotton all day long and has your wife and kiddies removed from you and sold off down the river. Truly…. you don’t get what a social construct is. You don’t have to AGREE with its values in order to understand its nature. Love, Honor, Duty, Beauty, Fidelity, everything that makes life worthwhile and a burden–all social constructs. Man/Woman as opposed to Male/Female…a social construct. While its not determinative, take a vote. Whoever fails the majority, has the burden of proof otherwise. Do races exist?==vote. ((and keep in mind my main point: such polls including every “scientific” analysis” I have seen to date, no one starts by defining what they mean by race ==ie, how they define it. Another GLARING ERROR.))
Scotty: So, it is racism that creates that thing you call race. But, it doesn’t exist in reality. As a social construct, it is not a real thing. /// Very good demonstration of not understanding what a social construct is, how it EXISTS, and how it goes away.
Scotty: But, if the racism can ever be driven away, the races will go with it, precisely because they are imaginary, /// Exactly so with your definition of imaginary. Remember the chains. Social Constructs exist as they exist while they exist.
Scotty: Races in humans are a product of human imagination … like angels … like unicorns … like faeries and sprites … like fire-breathing dragons … and like a whole bunch of other things even you, blowbo, would agree are not real. //// Except they are real in that as they can be defined, in a scientific manner, they can be demonstrated. They can be the basis for predicted results and confirmed by third parties. You cannot go into a room and pick out a faerie or a unicorn, but you can go into a room and pick our a curly haired blue eyed person. You don’t understand the nature of a social construct which flows from the same core of understanding what an issue of being definitional means.
Cerberus: And so, in spite of what has just transpired, I like you,/// You post as an existentialist, just as I do. Then I go a step further and proclaim to be pragmatic. Try it.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Did I try to “win” an argument about race? No……. mostly. But….. a little bit.
I did give it a “shot” though for as I think I have posted, but it might have been elsewhere: I lament situations where an idea I didn’t agree with wasn’t presented to me so that I could consider it. Puts me more “in charge” of my life to have the full range of options before me rather than go blindly ahead thinking there was only one option, aka, no option.
Hey Scotty: if you ever figure out what a social construct means, let me know.
Please don’t address more than 1-2 of any residue issues above. The learning effect of any disagreement gets lost in the volume.
Bob, on 5/21/14 @ 12:08
“It is “stupid” to deny race as it is to declare that brown skin describes/denotes anything other than brown skin. One color has no superiority over that of the other color=======BUT COLORS DO EXIST and humans use color to discriminate against other people,”
“If you want to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and sing “La…La…la” and pretend you don’t see race at all, you are just irrelevant and most likely a … A Liar. Well motivated but still a liar. Being scientists calls on one to deal with and aim for the truth.”
Fist you called me “stupid”, and then a “most likely a liar. Fucker!
Now I must present you with symbol for lying again!
n!nn
Cerberus–the quoted material was my response to Scotty. I think I know him well enough to make that judgement. I don’t know you well enough.
Course, I might be wrong on both counts.
To claim people’s race put them in chains or gas chambers is to claim that “black” people just naturally put on chains and work on cotton plantations and that Jews just naturally walk into gas chambers.
No blowbo. That is not, once again, proof of race. It is proof of racism. For, it is racists that put chains on some people and gassed others, not race.
Bingo!! This is why social construct is bullshit. Facts are not determined by popular vote. This is why I stick to science.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Actually blowbo, I think you were telling the truth about your cocaine problem. I think you realized you shouldn’t have put that out there on the web, even anonymously and are now trying to “take it back” and make it go away.
As a social construct, if I can get Cerberus to agree with me, then by a vote of two to one, you are a cocaine addict.
How about it Cerberus? Which time was blowbo lying? Was he lying when he told such vivid details of his drug problem? Or, was he lying when he said he made all of that shit up?
blowbo, remember, you don’t get a say in this. It’s all by popular vote. That’s what a social construct is. A popular vote can create a fact.
Getting circular here, but Dvorak is dead, so what they Hey.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To claim people’s race put them in chains or gas chambers is to claim that “black” people just naturally put on chains and work on cotton plantations and that Jews just naturally walk into gas chambers. /// I never said or hinted at that. I was thinking just as you post next. Making up a Straw Man to knock down.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No blowbo. That is not, once again, proof of race. It is proof of racism. For, it is racists that put chains on some people and gassed others, not race. //// How many non-blacks were called Negros, put in chains, and made to work on plantations? I’ll say: 3. 3 out of 2 Million. A selection criteria based on Skin Color. Seems to beat random chance by a large degree. How do you explain that?
He (Blowbo) was lying the moment that he revealed it to me that it was pure unadulterated BULLSHIT!
He has absolutely no concept that in telling such historical bullshit without revealing to others that said supposed “JOKE” was just a JOKE would leave others to believe it to be mere FACT!
Backpedal all you want Blowbo, but it won’t Chang anything.
What are you referring to Bad Dog? Please copy and paste your individual claims, as I don’t think you can:
when did I claim anything was historical bullshit?
what have I said was a joke other than I was a cocaine addict which you have agreed you recognized as such at the time?
I’m not backpedaling at all. Any repetition of issues is only in response to Scotties repetition (or Straw Man argument).
Why are you getting so emotional?
See, Scott? I pointed to his own error, and still he’s lying about it.
Cerberus, you “pointed” to it?
Why don’t you avoid Scott having to speak for you and simply state objectively what I said in error that I am lying about?
As stated, I don’t think you can do it. Surprise me.
Blowbo,
“Do you think I was ever a cocaine addict?”
This would be an indication that you were lying about your past. Your words, not mine.
“How is there lack of credibility when you can tell a joke?”
Again, this would be evidence that you were lying about your supposed “addiction”.
Scott’s reply:
“I did think you were a cocain addict”
An indication that others will believe the lie.
Liar
Well, ….. ok ……… at least that makes some kind of sense. What does my lying about my cocaine addiction have to do with any discussion about race?
Of continuing interest to me is your emotional level… Scott’s too.
All 3 of us agree that racism is not valid and such ideas need to be done away with. On any practical level, we are all in agreement. The fact that the temperature can rise so high on a disagreement about whether or not “race” can exist as a concept is indicative to me about how hard the notion of racism will be to ever eradicate.
People are emotional. Facts have little to do with it.
Bobbo,
“What does my lying about my cocaine addiction have anything to do with any discussion about race?”
Everything. Especially if you wish for our conversation to move in a forward direction.
Please take note, Bob:
If you want anyone to value your positions on any given topic, then stop lying. Period. Because if you do not heed the warning, then eventually no one will regard your standing with any merit at all. And it will not matter what sources you put in front of them either, they will disregard it, even if it has merit, truth, facts in it, and all because of the lies you tell.
Do you now understand?
Bob, have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?
You’re lying Is the equivalence to that story – one and the same.
I’m getting sleepy. Saw a few posts above that I missed, but its just the two opposing views being restated, each stated repeatedly.
How to move the discussion forward?
So, I thought why not google (Gould genetic base race) and see if he addressed it? Then I thought: Gee, Scotty and I already disagreed with him, lets try some other famous geneticist. I put in Dawkins. Imagine my surprise when basically he also rejects the Social Construction of Race????
————————— yep ———————————
Now I know Cerberus will be on a razors edge of accusing me of lying
when I say:
—————————————————————-yep —————-
Dawkins disagrees with me.
He thinks race is genetic. He is not politically correct. Thinks genes will drift according to group migration and isolation just like any other species.
Imagine that?
Dawkins sides with the race realists.
With regards to race Dawkins states, “Relatively recently, maybe less than 100,000 years ago, roving bands of Homo sapiens looking pretty much like us left Africa and diversified into all the races that we see around the world today: Inuit, native Americans, native Australians, Chinese, and so on. It is to this recent exodus that the phrase ‘out of Africa’ is normally applied.” Clearly he does not think then that races of man are merely a social construct, as declared to be a fact by many on the Left. And the important issue is whether there are real and measurable differences between groups of people in terms of intelligence and behavioral traits that can account for differences in a group’s prosperity.
http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/dawkins_sides_with_the_race_realists
Its from a blog…. too tired to track down a more formal source. Its the reasoning I admire.
Bobbo,
“How to move the discussion forward?”
An apology to, Mr Scott and EOG would be sufficient.
I’m prepared to admit that science rarely reaches a true consensus on any but the most concrete topics. Even climate change is not a consensus. It actually bothers me when those with whom I agree feel the need to misstate the state of climate science as a consensus. It’s 97% agreement in climate science.
From what I have read, race by the scientific definition, which generally equates to subspecies, does not exist in humans and never did. I am, however, prepared to admit that not all scientists equate race and subspecies and that some believe race exists in humans. Some may just be behind the curve and not up to date on the relevant information. Some may just actively disagree.
I don’t care about a few outliers, or even many outliers. I care about the overwhelming majority of the scientists in relevant fields, just as I do about climate change, which also has many outliers. 3% is a lot. It’s probably higher for race.
But, I remain an araceist for exactly the same reasons I remain an atheist, lack of scientific evidence.
As for social constructs, I don’t care. Facts are not subject to vote.
The thing is, Bob doesn’t realize that “social construct ism” is pointless philosophical opinions that no one can agree upon. And if you look at the descriptions of “strong vs. weak” you’ll see what it’s really all about as the religious is putting that bullshit into practice.
Please read the Wikipedia article.
In addition, it doesn’t matter about “the opinion of the majority” as the majority can get it wrong on so many levels. But if based on the facts is when the informed opinions matters, isn’t it?
Scotty: perhaps many things will become more clear to you when you can admit and deal with the fact that you can tell black from white, so can everyone else, and proceed with the consequences.
Everything is definitional.
Cerberus: I have never lied. A joke is not a lie.
Word play.
“Cerberus: I have never lied. A joke is not a lie.”
Then you should’ve stated that from the very beginning instead of allowing others such as Mr Scott to believe the lie.
If there will be no apology, then our conversations will come to an end.
Enough said
blowbo,
A joke told in deadpan in plain text with no smilie faces or other indicators of humor is indistinguishable from a lie. Hence, one of us believed it. This is probably a corollary to Poe’s Law (not that Poe).
Perhaps I’m just gullible.
Perhaps I’ve just worked with 2 really bright geeks, one of whom was a heroine addict, the other a crack addict. (Once an addict, always an addict.)
So, the idea that you might be a coke fiend and still be able to put semi-rational thoughts together didn’t surprise me. In fact, it explained some of your grammar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Well, I’d say you are completely full of shit, until I look at my grammar. Ha, ha…. I see your point. Quite the Grammar Nazi? I have to accept what I disagree with when I see that others do. Not quite a social construct but on the continuum. An aspect of reality.
The most interesting issue in this thread for me was you construction of: The fact of Theism does not prove the existence of god just as the existence of racism does not prove the existence of race. (whatever–I don’t care to look it up). My response was to agree and simply state how do you prove/test god, how do you prove/test race?… all under the generality of “its definitional.”
That syllogism still has great power with me (Its clever, confusing, a new argument) but I think my discomfort has been relieved. I will rephrase the proposition: You can’t have Theism without identifying (defining) what Gods you are talking about. Likewise, you can’t have racism without identifying (defining) what races (group of human characteristics) you are talking about. THEN you can test those definitions to see if the belief system consequential from it is valid, consistent, or what have you.
I feel good.
Bad Dog—in context, MEANING the conversation that had gone on just previously, I think most people would read my comment as a joke. When your confusion on that point was first raised, I expressly that it was a joke. You did not accept that information for clarity and continued to rant on about lying. I went along with it for a while.
In my world, most people don’t do drugs so saying one does is a sure sign of humor. Your experience is different, Scotts may be different.
You can demand that the World march to your tune, or learn that different people have different ideas.
Social Constructs.
((Once an addict, always an addict.))
This is true for most people, Mr Scott. And I also knew that Bobbo was still an addict, but I just didn’t want to say it to offend, Bob.
I have been clean of my addiction for the past 19 years. My X and children have been very instrumental in my loss of said addiction.
And they have my everlasting gratitude.
Someone babbling again?
Hmm… I just looked up consensus and had a rude awakening. Do you know if the meaning changed relatively recently? I had thought that a true consensus meant 100% agreement. Now it seems to mean majority opinion. That’s a huge change, if I’m right about the old meaning. I must look in an older dictionary and see if it’s just faulty memory on my part. I may have to retract a lot of statements.
I have a dictionary from 76 that states it’s “an agreement of all or most in some opinion.”
Looking for 100% is a failure to deal with ambiguity. It comes from a “religious mind set” and is a formula for failure: no idea at all has 100% agreement. And yet, science progresses.
My 1936 Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary says:
I can’t tell from that last whether it allows for dissenting opinions within the group of people or whether it acknowledges that outside the group other opinions exist. All I can say is that first definition of unanimity is what I had always believed consensus to mean. Either way though, the important thing to remember is that language changes over time.
Iv said before, that we need to clean up the USA language..
I figure we could kill off at least 100,000 words Easily.
To many words meant he SAME or, so close to similar, that they could be joined or removed.
I would LOVE to make a LEGAL definition of the Word ‘FREE’ AND NOT being able to ADD exceptions to the word or meaning.
Clean it up enough to help us understand what lawyers are saying. AT LEAST..
I think the first definition of “free” would not allow words to be “killed off” resulting in NewSpeak.
Hey ECA===amusing. You recognize an issue but your answer is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want clarity. All words need to be defined to the degree of specificity (meaning all the inclusions and exceptions that apply) required for the subject being discussed. The more general and inclusive a word is, by necessity, the more exceptions and just not quite right ideas are included and glossed over or ignored. When this happens enough, people construct another and different word.
A whole school of linguistics applies to whether or not we really understand a concept if we don’t have “a word” for it. I say we do if we have 15 words that define the same idea. Having a word only makes the communication quicker….. although…. regardless of the number of words used, I do think the Inuit Peoples do understand and communicate with one another what the weather is outside many times more specifically than the Non-Inuit Peoples among them. Image 50 different words for snow rather than just saying “Its Cold.”
Its a kind of free…..dom.
WELL,
our language is very Flexible.. With Pre/Suffix and other options to a single word, our language can do many things..
I dont mind Flexibility.. but Make 1-2 MEANINGS.. there are words in our language, that are OLD, from other languages, and some keep changing meanings..
its not that we dont have enough WORDS in our language. its just HOW people use them. Esp to hide the meaning of what they DONT want to say.
Language: a social construct. Those who say it doesn’t exist, leave me speechless.
It doesn’t.
Good one blowbo.
Note that the defining of how to define whether two similar tongues, for lack of a better term, are the same language and merely different dialects is non-scientific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language
This is further complicated by the existence of pidgins and creoles.
How long before we call English and United Statesian two different languages? How long before we call French and Quebecois two different languages?
Already, when showing Quebecois films in France, they display subtitles, or so I’ve heard.
Frankly, there are many “dialects of English” that really can’t easily be understood by other “English” speakers. So, sometimes the social contract breaks down over time and distance.
Good on ya mate for pointing this out.
I will be having a good laugh over this one.
Slàinte.
BTW, one thing I should point out is that my biggest problem with your social construct definition of the word race is the use of the word race, which actually has real scientific meaning when used to describe many non-human species. If you would just stop using the word race and switch to ethnicity as many scientists, sociologists, and others have done, I would probably just drop out of the conversation without giving a shit either way. My problem is that race, as a scientific concept, explicitly states heredity. Ethnicity doesn’t. Nor does language. Just don’t overload and misuse real scientific terms for fuzzy topics and I’ll be fine with whatever fuzzy shit you put out there.
As a fuzzy topic, I’ll even disagree with language as defined in wikipedia because it explicitly states that it only applies to humans. However, whenever scientists attempt to come up with an objective definition for language, some animal or other violates the rule and enters the realm of having language, albeit generally a whole lot simpler than human language, but there is syntax to it. They’ve even found that prairie dogs not only have words but that prairie dog “words” actually convey more information than a single word and are more close in meaning to simple sentences. Prairie dogs are medium sized rodents in the ground squirrel category if I remember correctly. And, they have language.
So, with language, the problem is not so much whether it exists but just what is it and who has it? These social constructs are a pain in the ass to nail down, even with a nail gun.
Scotty—when you get comfortable with the notion that everything is definitional and that the deepest understanding of most issues in life is conditional (rather than absolute) you will find that IT DOESN’T MATTER what you call something. Words are just labels.
The import is the subject underneath the words that is being discussed.
Layers.
In an honest discussion, its not Turtles all the way down, but changing elements of import, relevance, and meaning.
Its a beautiful thing.
“Note that the defining of how to define whether two similar tongues, for lack of a better term, are the same language and merely different dialects is non-scientific.” //// I disagree. The real (as opposed to spiritual) world can only be understood by way of science. If science cannot define it, or the difference, then it doesn’t exist. Small exception for those issues not yet understood well enough for such parsing to be made. Note, I think it is totally scientific to say that too dialects are so close that they cannot (as yet) be separated. for the definitions applied, they are the same enough to have the same label.
This discussion parallels the race one pretty closely. There is black, there is white. Everyone agrees on these two labels. NOT to be confused with all the gray cases where disagreement abounds. Race/Dialect clearly identifies the difference/categories of Black/White, English from French and puts the ambiguous inbetween cases into its own unresolved category. That does not negate the conclusions drawn otherwise. Even sex is like that: Male and Female, but there are ambiguous cases that cause disagreement as to those cases, not the entire classification system.
There are black and white races. Blacks put into chains by whites ((blacks did not voluntarily do it to themselves, only white conscripts and indentured servants did that)) and EVERYONE understands that is a race based social system. The fact that there are many and growing examples of brown skin that cannot be accurately put into black/white categories is…………….irrelevant. When we are all brown skin, then race will change to some other objective category.
Even we continue as a species for that long….. which I doubt. We are past serious tipping points already, with more dire tipping points being accelerated to. Talking about race is a complete distraction.
But, I am babbling. Not even for my own pleasure.
Does look like this thread is waning. I put Niel deGrasse Tyson into the race gentic base search query and didn’t get back anything on point for the 15 minutes I looked. I recall an interview with Tyson that questioned why he is not more of an activist for race equality and his answer was that it just wasn’t his thing to do and that he thought by showing that Black people could be scientists without reference to race that that would be a good role model for all kiddies to follow. He didn’t directly address whether or not race was a valid concept for not for what purposes, but I think he would have had he thought it was totally made up. No…. there is “something” there.
As is so often the case about choices…. the fullest most deep understanding of race is that it is both: both a scientific reality, and a subject of social construction. Race does exist, then racism adds on invalid stuff.
Serendipitous diversion to the subject on consensus. I used to think it meant large majority opinion without too strong a dissent. Meaning what minority views there were, were quibbles rather than outright denials. An even more subtle layering of meaning. It may have even been THIS BLOG years ago that I looked the word up and thought it meant 100%… but now we are back to majority agreement plus something?
How does this not demonstrate the need to DEFINE what we are talking about? Usually words are static enough from one generation to the next…but CONSENSUS is on the cusp. Evolution caught in a snapshot?
You have to define race the same way: what is it that you are claiming does not exist? There is consensus that all the different races exist and I think consensus that racism is wrong. Consensus and race mean/are whatever people generally agree it is or as they may with more words define.
As social constructs, humanity just doesn’t operate any other way. Not even a shallow understanding to recognize that.
Hi all!
Well, I think my father will be pleased with me now.
Am I to take it your a Christian again?
Yes, and I don’t want to fight over it. K?
There won’t be any fight about this. You have my word.
Take care
I’ll miss you EOG
Goddamnit.
Miss you too.
I love you Cerberus ♥
And don’t take his name in vain.
So, we’re now on opposing teams? This is not happening.
I can’t talk anymore.
Have a blissful life
Cerberus, please don’t go.
I apologize if you’re disapointed with me for my failure in resigning atheism, but I’ve tried it already, and just feel too confined with it.
This is much harder for myself than you think.
Bobbo, stop it!
Cerberus, please talk to me?
EOG==most excellent response. FULL of human warmth, compassion, and understanding.
Take Heart. The whole point of forum posting is that people can engage at their own pace and comfort. Cerberus may take some time, should return, but maybe not.
To each, their own.
Cerberus, if you’re reading this I want to remain friends with you!
Please don’t shut me out! Please! You’re one of the best friends I’ve ever had! And I need you! Please come back! Please?
Bobby, I don’t feel there is any need in your overanalizing and bot comments.
Cerberus is a good person that I have the utmost respect for, and his only modivation is for the truth.
Over analyzing? Analyzing is good. How can one have too much good in one’s life?
Don’t have any idea what “bot comment” means but it sounds like taking my name in vain?
Google agrees that “God Damn It” has consensus saying it is taking the Lord’s name in vain, but I don’t get it. God is not God’s name, it is his status. There are lots of Gods, all with different names. Zeus, Thor, Yahweh and so forth. To be a name taken in vain, seems to me the phrase would have to be on the order of “Yahweh damn it” or Jehovah BUT even then I don’t get it. Just asking He Who’s Name Shall Not Be Uttered to do something. Aren’t we supposed to be doing that?
Seems to me taking a name in vain should be more like “Adoni on a Crutch” or some such.
But what do I know of Dogma?
I thought “God Damn It” was a prayer for some specific result, you know, to have God change his mind or to reveal it? As Calvin noted, actually an affirmation of his greathness.
“Goddamnit” sounds more like a speech impediment.
Social Constructs x 2?
Expulsion of Gods,
Good to hear from you. I welcome people on my site both with and without faith. Though, often, those of faith stop coming back.
In my mind, I do not think faith is something that is truly a choice. That you have now come to have faith through whatever introspection or “soul searching” you have undertaken is entirely up to you. It will likely change the content of our conversations quite significantly but will not change the level of respect I have for you.
Regarding the phrase “God damn it”, I think this varies a lot by sect. For nominally monotheistic sects like Judaism and Christianity, which acknowledge in commandment 1 that other gods exist and forbid “having them before Me”, God with a capital G in English is assumed to be one of the many names for the one true god, as opposed to all of the others. I believe this is even more true for Islam which states that there is no God but God/Allah as commandment 1, despite then believing in Satan as well.
Some sects forbid even using the name in all but prayer. In Judaism, for example, prayers often begin with Baruch Attah Adonoi. But, when teaching a prayer to someone or reciting the prayer in some context other than truly praying, many Jews will say Baruch Attah Adoshem. In Hebrew shem means name. So, you’re not really saying the name. Similarly, in any writing, Jews are forbidden even to write the word God on a piece of paper that may be thrown away and will instead write G-d. Having the name there instantly makes the thing sacrosanct. I’m sure such Jews would feel equally strongly about typing God into a blog post.
Regarding Yahweh, Jews never ever say that name. It is spelled in Hebrew transliteration something like Yehovah (which gives rise to Jehovah’s witnesses), often pronounced, if someone dare pronounce it, Yahweh. But, Jews don’t say that. Instead, it is always always always said aloud as Adonoi, even in prayer.
So, given all of that, it is easy to see why many sects of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith would find any spoken instance of God with a capital G as blasphemy in any context other than prayer.
Sorry for the long winded opinion on this.
Scott, that was so beautiful that I’m getting choked up at the moment … I’ll try and respond as best I can.
That was very touching. Thank you so much.
It feels so good to have you as my friend.
I will return
EOG, any time you’re up for the discussion, I’d be very curious to hear what bit of introspection actually did change your mind. It’s extremely unlikely to change mine. But, I’m always curious. I only know one other ex-atheist who later picked up religion.
EOG;
I’m truly sorry for my comment. It was totally uncalled for, and I ask for your forgiveness.
I really do care for you.
Can we still be friends?
Honey, I wasn’t mad at you. My very concern was that I was abandoned by you.
Now I’m crying … and the happiest girl ever!
Thank you, thank you, thank you both!!
:-):-):-)♥♥♡♡
xoxox
My dearest, EOG,
Please read these words very carefully.
I would never abandon you.
I will never do that…
…well…at least not until my exploration date.
“At least not until my exploration date.”
Very funny, Cerberus. Now stop it.
“I would never abandon you.”
Reading this makes me so happy.
Thank you sweety. Night
Damn-it, don’t do that. It’s embarrassing.
But, very well…
Night
🙂
blowbo,
Everything is only somewhat definitional. It’s like arguing that all arguments are arguments of semantics. To say it the way you do is to claim that one can redefine any word to mean any thing.
So, today, I will define Tree to mean Fish.
The fact of the matter is that words have at least some social construct, if you will, regarding the meaning of the word. Such definitions are laid out in books called dictionaries.
As for race, we had already agreed that the scientists had stated that it does not in fact exist at all in humans. Are you now going backward on your agreement on that point? If not we can continue. If so, then perhaps you had been lying earlier about your agreement as well as your cocaine habit.
So, science states that race is a group of individuals of a species related by common descent or heredity. And, science is in fairly strong agreement that such does not exist in humans, hence the complete lack of any third Latin name for any subspecies of human.
Given that there is a scientific definition of the word race, I choose to stick to that and argue strongly that it does not exist in humans.
But as for your black/white argument, I can also show that to be false and have repeatedly done so. Though, you have repeatedly ignored the implications and keep falling back on your same old arguments again and again and again.
There is NOT worldwide agreement on what is black.
You say black does not include aboriginal Australians but “white” Australians call the aboriginals black. So, you’re wrong.
You say black does not include Indians but famously, Ghandi was asked to leave first class on a train because he was black. That incident famously sparked the beginning of his activism. So, a major world political movement began because South Africans though Indians were black. So, you’re wrong.
You say white includes Jews and Arabs. But, the KKK would strongly disagree. Hitler also disagreed. And, since Adolf could not actually tell Jews by looking at them, he required the wearing of yellow stars of David to distinguish the race of Jews in his country. So, you’re wrong.
So, if you want to define tree to mean fish, I think we can stop having this conversation.
If you want to change from the label race to the label ethnicity, then we will be done.
Again and again and again, you have stated and restated the same bullshit. Again and again and again, I have pointed out why you are flat dead wrong. Again and again and again, you claim victory without ever getting agreement from me.
You’re just wrong. And, yes, I still think you have a cocaine habit, which explains so much of your behavior.
This is what scientific classification of race would look like in humans if it existed. Comparing to a close relative of ours, the gorillas, which consist of two species, each with two races/subspecies. Please note the trinomial Latin names.
http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org/gorillas.html
I know it’s hard to understand through the haze of cocaine in your brain, but when scientists think something exists, they name it. There are no scientifically named races/subspecies in humans.
Scotty, I scanned this real fast and saw a few items, so I’ll do my parsing response to sort my conclusions at the same time.
blowbo,
Everything is only somewhat definitional. /// No. We think with words. All words must be defined. You still don’t get that. Its a simple FOUNDATIONAL concept.
It’s like arguing that all arguments are arguments of semantics. /// Your statement has been understood and countered directly. No need to make analogies to help explain its meaning. To restate: all arguments will be sematic arguments if the parties do not use the same definitions of the words being used. Once you have defined your terms, then arguments are no longer semantical.
To say it the way you do is to claim that one can redefine any word to mean any thing. /// That is a semantical argument and one that again shows you don’t get it. My point has been that you have to define the words to begin with. What you do in gross error is to define a word only by concluding that you reject the definition of the word without ever saying what that definition is. I think that is a form of special pleading, but I’m somewhat removed from my years of formal training.
So, today, I will define Tree to mean Fish. /// Why? The issue before us is race. Not helpful to go down a meaningless path…. but it looks like you dropped this line of reasoning, so I will too.
The fact of the matter is that words have at least some social construct, if you will, regarding the meaning of the word. /// No. Words are 100% social constructs.
Such definitions are laid out in books called dictionaries. /// Amoung other sources: yes.
As for race, we had already agreed that the scientists had stated that it does not in fact exist at all in humans. /// No, only you said that. I have disagreed from the start by saying it was all definitional and most specifically I gave you two definitions one of which would be scientific, the other not. If you find language in isolation looking like I said science can’t define race then I was in error or making some other point.
Are you now going backward on your agreement on that point? /// If I agreed science could not define race, we would not have this thread. You are limiting your understanding to a faulty one of the Science of Genetics and denying the Science of Social Constructs. Not very sophisticated at all.
If so, then perhaps you had been lying earlier about your agreement as well as your cocaine habit. /// Silly. Why do you lower yourself so?
So, science states that race is a group of individuals of a species related by common descent or heredity. /// I can work with that.
And, science is in fairly strong agreement that such does not exist in humans, //// Link please? We are all related to one another, just a matter of degree. As you define that degree, you define race.
hence the complete lack of any third Latin name for any subspecies of human. /// Words. By definition and label “race” is not subspecies.
Given that there is a scientific definition of the word race, I choose to stick to that and argue strongly that it does not exist in humans. /// Different groups of people aren’t more closely related to one another than some other group? That is laughably ignorant. You KNOW that is not true, you are just caught up in your own argument. You ought to be able to see that………. at some point?
But as for your black/white argument, I can also show that to be false and have repeatedly done so. /// No, you never have other than saying there are shades of brown skin you could not tell apart and further that you could not pick a black man out of a group of whites and asians. Again… laughably ignorant or caught up.
Though, you have repeatedly ignored the implications and keep falling back on your same old arguments again and again and again. /// Gibberish. What are those implication I have ignored? As best as I can make sense of your statement, I have refuted and disagreed with your arguments. That is not ignoring your implications. What am I missing?
There is NOT worldwide agreement on what is black. /// Thats why I said define it by matching to the hexadecimal color code. How dense are you?
You say black does not include aboriginal Australians but “white” Australians call the aboriginals black. So, you’re wrong. /// You don’t get it. Those white austalians are using a different definition. THATS THE WHOLE POINT.
You say black does not include Indians but famously, Ghandi was asked to leave first class on a train because he was black. That incident famously sparked the beginning of his activism. So, a major world political movement began because South Africans though Indians were black. So, you’re wrong. /// Again, they used a different definition. THATS THE WHOLE POINT.
You say white includes Jews and Arabs. But, the KKK would strongly disagree. Hitler also disagreed. And, since Adolf could not actually tell Jews by looking at them, he required the wearing of yellow stars of David to distinguish the race of Jews in his country. So, you’re wrong. /// Again, they used a different definition. THATS THE WHOLE POINT.
So, if you want to define tree to mean fish, I think we can stop having this conversation. /// How would that be helpful?
If you want to change from the label race to the label ethnicity, then we will be done. /// Race is not ethnicity.
I
Again and again and again, you have stated and restated the same bullshit. Again and again and again, I have pointed out why you are flat dead wrong. Again and again and again, you claim victory without ever getting agreement from me.
You’re just wrong. And, yes, I still think you have a cocaine habit.
Yes, I do claim you don’t get it, but I gain nothing by your continuing ignorance. YOU are the only person here that could win anything from this discussion, although I did get an update on what consensus means.
Scotty—you ignore the arguments against you and in fact you repeat the arguments that don’t work. My proof: first the warmup: can you pick one black marble out of a bag containing 100 white marbles?
Now the proof: using the same color shades as the marbles for skin color: can you pick one black human in a room of white people? That is differentiation of people by race.
Foolish to deny simple truths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Word search for Dawkins about half way down. Interesting he includes a complaint about the failure to have race well defined.
“Most physical anthropologists consider race to be primarily a social category that does not correspond significantly with biological variation, but some anthropologists, particularly forensic anthropologists, consider race a useful biological category.” /// aka–straight genetic science and/or taxonomic terminology or placement is also not dispositive.
Humor: depending on how you define it, evolution at an early point of differentiation by necessity goes thru a racial stage before changing even more to a sub species then to a whole new species. Its all definitional.
I am guessing here but will repeat: seems to me your “animus” in this subject is from confusing/conflating issues of racism with issues of race. Why else would you deny being able to pick black from white or that blacks were made slaves? Starting with a minimum objective scientific definition and use of “race” is not rendered invalid because racists misuse the idea later. Two different issues.
I don’t blame geneticists who sidestep the issue of race. They are afterall only human. Who wants to put up with the rants and raves of the idiots on both sides of the issue when what they are interested in is gmo?
blowbo,
Point 1.
The cocaine has destroyed too much of your brain for me to bother continuing to try to educate you on the fact that there is a field called biology. It defines the concept of race as subspecies. There are no human subspecies (or just one which amounts to the same thing). This will be my last attempt. Say what you will after this, the conversation will die. You can have the last word and be as wrong as you want in your final post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29#Subspecies
Point 2.
The cocaine has destroyed so much of your brain that you don’t even realize that you’re saying “heads I win; tails you lose” and are hoping that I’ll merely ask to examine the coin.
You state that if I can identify the races it proves that race exist.
When I point out why I can’t, you say that proves your point too.
Which is it?
Which statement is the lie? Are you high on cocaine or not? Perhaps, you’re Schroedinger’s blowbo, simultaenously addicted and not addicted to cocaine until the SWAT team raids your house to check.
I’m done blowbo. I know you’ll probably want to bring this up again and again because you have already done so again and again. But, it’s pointless. I side with the harder sciences. Anything else may be ethnicity or it may be imaginary. I don’t give a shit.
Well, I’ve had a nice little nap and reviewed the last few entries. Here is what sticks in my craw:
“Again and again and again, you have stated and restated the same bullshit. Again and again and again, I have pointed out why you are flat dead wrong.”
Only from memory, I have presented many different arguments and it is you that have presented the same uniform response, mostly one of sticking your fingers in your ears, singing la-la-la, and repeating what you believe or what you prefer. Backed up with lies and diversions. Thats one level of disfunction, but then you claim just the opposite. Kinda the icing on the cake. You argue as a religious person does==all for what you believe, not responding at all to what you don’t believe.
From memory–I raised the issue of race because it is an excellent example of how issues are definitional. I think this thread 100% proves that and only a fool can deny it. REGARD: if you define race by some number of geneticists, you can fairly conclude race does not exist. BUT if you define race as Dawkins does, as Forensic Anthropologists do, as Social Scietists do, as anyone in Jail for Driving while Black does, as anyone who has self identified as such, then you can only fairly conclude that race does exist.
Unlike YOU, I do not say which definition is right or wrong===only that the argument is definitional and you get different answers depending on which definition you use. Isn’t that CRYSTAL CLEAR? I do feel constrained to say that “most people” do pick the definition that race exists. And I do prefer living in the reality of our social constructs: race does exist as a social construct. We need to admit that before we can do away with the evils of racism. What gives racism its evil is that it piles demonstrably untrue ideas ((Like Whites are Lazy and Stupid)) on top of true ideas ((Like Whites sunburn easily)).
So, we were in our respective corners. How to proceed? I link to the Wiki that gives both definitions of race==one that it is mostly unrecognized by science, and one that it is firmly part of social science (aka the science that studies social constructs). You respond by championing the science defintion and denying that the social construct even exists. I advanced, you are stuck on stupid.
Then I provide a thought experiment that you can pick a black man out of a group of whites and Asians. You doubt you would be able to do that because brown skin can be ambiguous. I advanced, you are stuck on stupid.
Then I provide the historical consequential fact that the Race of Black People were held in Bondage in the USA. You countered by saying that was a product of racism, not race…. totally ignoring that is was all Negroes as defined by their black skin that was the selecting factor. I advanced, you are stuck on stupid.
Then I analyzed the syllogism of theism and god compared to racism and race. I showed it was all definitional: you can’t have that “ism” without defining what it applies to. This does NOT mean that what it applies to is established. You have to TEST for that. You can’t walk into a room and pick out God as defined. You can ((well, not you–just everyone else on earth)) pick out a Black man as defined. I advanced, you are stuck on stupid.
Then I linked to Dawkins, a qualifed geneticists who has written serveral books on point, who as described makes every single point I have and declares simply that races do exist and such category is all part of standard evolutionary theory: genetic drift arising by geographic isolation and time. To deny race is to deny evolution. You response in the main is to dither about what consensus means and later to stupidly argue that race doesn’t exist because it is not defined as ethnicity (weird as that is purely a social construct even more flakey than race as used by racists as opposed to scientists) or later as a sub-species. Ironic you want to defeat the argument that race is definitional by claiming that only certain definitions apply but not others. Again, I advanced, you did move from one kind of stupid to another…. a kind of progress.
If you define a tree as a fish, then you can go fishing in your back yard. It won’t be very helpful, and ECA will be confused. What is your point?
MY POINT: every argument must define the words/terms/ideas it is using. If you can’t do that for race, you will miss out on any deeper understanding of many issues.. like eugenics or artificial intelligence as they are all heavily semantical.
I have won?====Define winning.
I see we have cross posted. I don’t care you are stuck on the cocaine reference… aka… stuck on stupid and lying.
You aren’t stupid, more so caught up in the argument. I think you are smart, and smart people can apply the black marble recognition to people. Smart people can tell when they ignore what Dawkins has to say. I give you more dignity by thinking of you lying, than as stupid.
My own bias. I have been wanting to say you have been quite consistent with this failure to deal with the definitional/human defined constructs of our universe. You do an excellent job of explaining subjects on which you have some knowledge. Where you fail, is in dealing with information you don’t agree with. You want to “win” an argument. That maybe be much if not all of your issue. Comfort with a new idea/different idea/conflicting idea.
You start by being honest with yourself. Its all definitional. Everything you know about your limited scientific view of the issue is still valid. It is in the magisteria of race as defined as not significant enough a set of markets so as to create a sub species.
Do you think that is all there is?
Bob,
“Bad Dog-in context, MEANING the conversation that had gone on just previously, I think most people would read my comment as a joke.”
Not necessarily true, especially if others don’t know you. I’ve seen your rants about having a “wife” v. “No wife” – how is your being born a “cocaine addict” vs “not being an addict” any different? Why, even I was taken by your lie until I remembered the stories of “wife vs not.” This is how I knew you were lying.
But I think your lying has more to do with psychology, because you wish to know more about people without asking them any real questions.
I will not fall for that shit again.
Bob,
“You did not accept that information for clarity and continued to rant on about lying.”
As I still do not accept it. A lie is still a lie.
Bob,
“I went along with it for a while.”
Going along with it for a while?
This would imply that you are lying, yet again. You do realize that actors are professional liars, don’t you?
Bob,
“In my world, most people don’t do drugs,”
This is offering yet another lie. Dealers and addicts are everywhere in your modern society of “social constructivism.” They are everywhere. Lawyers, Doctors, Fire fighters, Police, Government officials and even those like yourself, Bob. Actors. So to even utter that “they are not in your world” is an obvious lie. Way too obvious.
And I’ll bet even you can spot them, Bobo.
Only an apology will forward our discussion, Blowbo. Are you even game for that? Or will you just keep the pretense going?
Your choice.
Well Bad Dog, you are truly being tedious and adamantly obstinate. You have fixated on the notion of lying, while, or by, totally ignoring the additional information that the statement was a joke. So like Scotty you are.
I wouldn’t even respond to you except you demonstrate a vital skill that Scotty can learn from: you are copying and pasting the exact language you are thinking of and responding directly to it. That is a key to understanding/learning/changing. For that, I will do likewise, but again, you are being tedious.
Let’s begin with a few definitions? Quite often, just reviewing the definitions of the words at issue will provide some insight.
lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive
joke: a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline
The first reference to my cocaine use “in this thread” is very specifically to say it was a joke. It was to demonstrate that saying I could flip a position on a dime was also a joke. It is clearly my intent to show humor, not to deceive. Lots of humor is premised or set up by first telling a lie, a hypothetical to set up the punchline. Do you think “The Aristocrats” is based on the truth…… or a dirty low down lie?
Interestingly, this all feeds into a common issue here: flexibility of mind, the ability and inability to accept new information, or information we disagree with, to go for deeper more significant meaning, or to be trapped on the surface of things with labels. The “truth” does have a way of knitting together issues and facts from disparate areas in life. Very rewarding for me to see.
A further analysis to find the actually first reference to cocaine use on a different thread is relevant, but not the main point here, so I will decline. The phrase “what do I have to do, push a bus load of Nuns off a cliff” keeps coming to mind. I may have to check that first use for my own amusement.
Yes…. my reference to cocaine use was a joke. If even just for my own amusement. Humor is like that.
Lets continue:
Bob,
“Bad Dog-in context, MEANING the conversation that had gone on just previously, I think most people would read my comment as a joke.”
Not necessarily true, especially if others don’t know you. I’ve seen your rants about having a “wife” v. “No wife” – how is your being born a “cocaine addict” vs “not being an addict” any different? Why, even I was taken by your lie until I remembered the stories of “wife vs not.” This is how I knew you were lying.
But I think your lying has more to do with psychology, because you wish to know more about people without asking them any real questions.
I will not fall for that shit again.
Bob,
“You did not accept that information for clarity and continued to rant on about lying.”
As I still do not accept it. A lie is still a lie. /// Yes, a lie is a lie. but a Joke is a Joke. “But a good cigar, is a smoke.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bob,
“I went along with it for a while.”
Going along with it for a while?
This would imply that you are lying, yet again. /// Yes, I thought it was funny to give you enough rope to hang yourself. If you want to walk around with a stick up your ass, who am I to deny you that pleasure?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You do realize that actors are professional liars, don’t you? /// In the Movie “Notting Hill” Julia Robert’s concern was that all female actors were seen as prostitutes. Liars too. My, my. Except for the money, that makes one wonder why anyone becomes an actor. And if God really is Charlize Theron….. my goodness,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bob,
“In my world, most people don’t do drugs,”
This is offering yet another lie. /// How do you know that? What does “my world” mean? What do “drugs” mean? My first thought was to write “In my world, no one does drugs.” But immediately I thought of my ex-roommate who was into pills and some kind of stuff that needed to be melted in spoons. Before that, my sister was into drugs of some sort. Two exceptions to “no one” so I said “most.” I could have said “no one” for emphasis, but as the statement was on point for the subject being addressed, I thought a more accurate statement (the truth) was called for. Totally ignored: alcohol as “everyone” I know drinks. Also ignored: maurijuana. I understand many if not people toke now and then. I don’t and none of my close friends do. See how “close” modifies friends.
Sorry Cerberus: in my world, most people don’t do drugs. OH CRAP!!!—also excluded would be prescription drugs. I don’t do those either, and neither do my close friends, but ALL my neighbors consume a basket of prescription drugs every month.
Gee, you know Cerberus, the truth is hard to capture in a simple declaritive sentence. Probably why a short quick lie is the set up for so many jokes and political bumper stickers…… and what makes “The Aristocrats” one of the greatest jokes ever told.
Know what I mean?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dealers and addicts are everywhere in your modern society of “social constructivism.” /// Yes, thats true. In society. Not in my world…. those places I frequent.
They are everywhere. Lawyers, Doctors, Fire fighters, Police, Government officials and even those like yourself, Bob. Actors. So to even utter that “they are not in your world” is an obvious lie. Way too obvious. /// Its definitional.
And I’ll bet even you can spot them, Bobo. //// Sadly… no. Thats how my roommate got away with it for so long. Hard to be an expert in those things we aren’t exposed to. But I can spot idiots. People: we are all different and the same at the same time. This allows each individual their unique personal experience while sharing the commonality that a culture provides. Layered. Nuanced.
Only an apology will forward our discussion, Blowbo. //// I’m still waiting for yours.
Are you even game for that? /// Give me the form of the apology you are seeking. It could well be different than what I am thinking of that I reject. I have some declining hope for you that you can learn something from this exchange.
Or will you just keep the pretense going? /// Knock, knock?? HEELlllooooo? There is no pretense going on here at all, only your fixation. It was a JOKE. Clearly stated as such, RIGHT FROM THE START.
Your choice. /// Both of us are making choices. Ain’t life grand?
Hmmmm, proofing after posting, I see I missed the first paragraph of your post. Let me correct that oversight as I’m not trying to avoid any issue:
Bob,
“Bad Dog-in context, MEANING the conversation that had gone on just previously, I think most people would read my comment as a joke.”
Not necessarily true, /// Very few things/issues in life are necessarily true. To base anything on that is most often a waste of time, missing the generality of the statement for the necessary diversions. Not a strong way to think.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
especially if others don’t know you. //// That is very true. Humor does not come across well on these written forums between strangers. THATS WHY I SAID as the very introduction to the subject that it was a joke. Bad Dog–you are necessarily cherry picking this issue for the demons of your motivations. “Lies” have obviously been a traumatic issue in your life. True for most people. True for me. Growing up is to find the balance for the lies and truths in our lives.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I’ve seen your rants about having a “wife” v. “No wife” – how is your being born a “cocaine addict” vs “not being an addict” any different? //// I don’t follow you. but you are touching on a worthy issue. but you don’t develop it, so I won’t either.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Why, even I was taken by your lie until I remembered the stories of “wife vs not.” This is how I knew you were lying. //// Again, I can hardly follow you. If you “know” I am lying, then you were not deceived and if I was trying to lie, then I wasn’t very good at it. I am a failed liar. SEEMS TO ME what you are saying is you KNOW I wasn’t telling the truth….. which is the perfect introduction to start looking for some other motive? LIKE TELLING A JOKE?
Ha, ha. Its all right there. fixated on lying when you know it wasn’t the truth. Why do that? Hmmmmmm?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
But I think your lying has more to do with psychology, because you wish to know more about people without asking them any real questions. ///// Well THAT is a very deep recognition: Bravo. Sadly, it stands in stark exception to everything else you write. you got potential Bad Dog. Keep thinking. Its good for what ails ya.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will not fall for that shit again. /// Yep, you do present yourself with little to no humor. could be the format, the subject, or just need more time. Do you laugh everyday Cerberus? Its very important to laugh, honestly, as much as you can. I inject my own humor FOR MYSELF, for that very reason. Keeps you regular.
I tried to take a nap, but having just awoken from a short one, I wasn’t able to. I started thinking about “So, today, I will define Tree to mean Fish.” So, rather than take another hit off my bedside Bong Pipe, or do a line of coke, or wait an hour for the Rapture to take me, I thought I would post for any hapless soul who doesn’t understand that words, the words we think with, are 100% social constructs. In my near sleep state, it made me laugh.
I don’t even know what “define” means in that sentence though. How would that even look? Tree: a gilled chordate that swims in water? No, I don’t think one can define a tree to “mean” a fish. I might be wrong about that, or maybe just not clever enough. I have never studied linguistic, just read more than most about it…. which doesn’t mean all that much. What I can do though is “call” or designate the word “fish” as covering both what we now call fish and trees. Fish: living multicellular organisms that variously have gills and swim in water or live on land as a woody perennial plant.
As so many words do regardless, the challenge of such a label or social construct is the amount of confusion such a combo term would cause as no one would know outside of other contextual clues which one of the designated organisms one was talking to. “I had fish last night” could mean either a nice salmon, or perhaps a fruit compote? BUT: “I built a fishhouse last week for my son and we slept overnight in it and enjoyed it very much. Lots of nice shade and fruit from that fish.” could only refer to that perennial woody thing. See how that would work? Language: 100% a social construct. Anyone saying its only partially a construct: doesn’t understand either language or social constructs.
Science of course would brook no such nonsense keeping what we have today on the differences between the thing with fins and the thing with leaves. Science fits its parts on a larger more “defined” plateau. Do you mean the fish in the Animal Kingdom or the fish in the Plant Kingdom? Same word but different magisteria. I think we covered this word play on an earlier thread? “Bow” has so many totally different meanings. So does the English word for “snow” if you are an Eskimo or Inuit as Dawkins racially categorizes them.
More on point for this discussion though is to see that what we call something tells us almost nothing about it. We have to check that definition. Calling a tree a fish doesn’t change the reality of either tree or fish, its only what we inefficiently call them. Calling a tree a fish does not give it gill or fins. It is still a woody perennial plant.
On point: not calling a tree anything at all does not change its objective characteristics either. If we had no word, no social construct for tree, it would still be there in all its glory.
Same with race. We can call people what we wish but their objective characteristics do not change. Some have white skin, others have black skin, some get sickle cell more easily than others, some get malaria more easily, some sunburn more easily, some had ancestors that left Africa relatively recently others a long time ago, but whatever they are called, their essential characteristics remain in place. All one species, no sub-species, one or more race====depending on how you define race.
Its all words, and we do think with words, at least initially. Thankfully, for many/most issues the words are pretty accurate and we don’t have to look more closely for the fins or the leaves. Then sadly, some people can’t see the fish for the trees.
Fun to think about, a good exercise.
Tree means fish.
Race is mostly skin color.
Same thing. Neither is a valid definition from any dictionary. Indeed definitions are a social construct. When you pointed to actual definitions of race, I showed why those definitions, while agreed on by social construct, are fucking useless.
Race can be anything by those definitions.
Then you continually fall back to “race is mostly skin color” when ever I rip apart some other legitimate definition of race showing why I believe race to be crap.
But saying race is mostly skin color is saying a tree is a fish. It is not a definition agreed upon by social construction. Further, even if it were a valid definition, even if you could find some children’s dictionary that would say it so incorrectly and so simplistically, it is, as other social construct definitions, completely and utterly useless for any subject for which there is actual fact.
Race as a social construct is stupid. That many people constructed it and agree on it does not make it less so. Facts are not subject to vote. I agree that there are many different and contradictory social constructions for what race means.
There is also a scientific definition that is much more concrete.
As I’ve pointed out a dozen times or more, skin color lumps Bantus and Pygmies and Bushmen into “black”. But, the relation between these is likely more distant than aboriginal Australian and Asian and Native American and Caucasian and Polynesian, since only a small subset of the African gene pool left Africa and then diverged.
That is why race in humans does not exist in my opinion. Period. End. It is my opinion. It is based on science, not popular vote. You are free to go with the popular vote. But, you will not convince me that the popular vote can determine facts.
Next, you’ll be telling me that Paul Revere rode from Boston to Trenton to tell George Washington that the British are coming the British are coming. Popular vote says so. But, he didn’t.
Israel Bissell did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Bissell
Popular vote does not a fact make.
I said I was done. But, since you failed to understand my tree/fish reference to your race/skin bullshit, I figured I’d explain.
I remain an atheist because there is no scientific evidence for any gods.
I remain an araceist because there is no scientific evidence for race in humans.
That is all.
Well done, Mr Scott.
I think in the same way. He constantly makes accusations on how so wrong you and I are, but fails to notice that not all parties are going to agree with him, especially since that’s a worn out topic that no one will agree upon.
As noted by scientist, it calls to question even science, and since it does this is why I too think it’s a dead subject.
Sorry for the intrusion on the conversation.
It’s not an intrusion. If blowbo and I wanted to have this conversation privately, we could do so via email instead of on this blog. I, for one, welcome more people chiming in.
“I, for one, welcome more people chiming in.”
Point taken.
I do like the responses you’ve given to our adversary. Though, I’ve also noticed how he doesn’t want us to stay on point either.
Guess I’ll just have to keep the label of “tedious”, eh?
Dawkins.
Nope. I was referring to scientists. I just figured I’d snare you on this, just as you had thought you had done so with me. But didn’t.
Like the word play?
Nope. I was referring to scientists. /// Dawkins is a preeminent scientist specialized in genetics who clearly states and explains how race exists in humans. No one can legitimately state that science has a settled position on race.
I just figured I’d snare you on this, /// How did you do that?
just as you had thought you had done so with me. /// It was not my intent to snare you, but rather to show your position was unreasonable.
But didn’t./// Whatever.
Like the word play? /// I don’t see any wordplay from you at all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CB, let me try to snare you with this:
Can you pick a black marble out of a bag of 100 white marbles and one black marble? Or like Scotty, are you snared by refusal to say one way or another?
Regarding, Dawkins:
Good for you. I’m sure the hat doesn’t fit anymore.
Regarding the snare:
You’re the genius. So, figure it out.
An unreasonable position? Huh.
Yes, you do have that. But, whom am I to argue with such magnificence.
Glad for you to have noticed no word play from my statement. However, I’ve noticed none from you either.
I’m impressed that you’re not in reference to the KKK this time. Would this be call for a celebration. Perhaps I should just roll-over and play dead.
Gee … That’s a real tuff question. Perhaps I’ll give it some thought.
Hmmmm…..
Could I pick out a black ( wow! That’s in reference to my own name) marble from a bag of 100 white marbles?
Hmmmmm….
I’m not sure.
Perhaps if one were to make an apology I’d be inclined to answer such a tuff question. Hmmm… I wonder.
gibberish.
I do expect more from Scott, but so far have had no joy.
Scotty?
I can see that I’ve now made your day!
Thanks for the compliment!
I very much enjoy any an all criticism. 🙂
blowbo,
Re: “Dawkins”
That’s one, not a consensus, not a majority. I’ve given links that say that the majority opinion of science is that race means subspecies and that it does not exist in humans.
I’m perfectly willing to admit that some scientists disagree with the majority opinion. The majority opinion of scientists is more convincing TO ME.
I just don’t like the idea of using a scientific term in a non-scientific way. Nor do I like defining race differently for humans than we do for the other 10 million species on the planet.
Actually, the scientific opinion that race has one meaning for all species and therefore does not apply to humans would probably still convince me even if it were the minority opinion.
I’m just a whole-hog-or-none kind of guy.
I’ve given links that say that the majority opinion of science /// Link? “At best” per my admitted fuzzy memory is that it was some group of geneticists, not scientists. AND my memory says that was about the existence of a human race, not that race was defined as sub-species. You keep throwing that red herring into this discussion. Race does NOT equal sub-species. Thats why there is two different words===like fish and tree. When you have a split of opinion on a scientific issue, you look to the reasoning to see what evidence is used to back which theory.
You and your references never presented a specific definition that is a fundamental error on your part and the part of the quotes as I recall them. You gave one general description…. no where near a definition or description.
Do you wanna bet there are more than just Dawkins? I did a youtube search for race genes and there is quite a bit there. Certain genes occurring only in Caucasians or in blacks. Totally genetic racial definition and demonstration there. Not the same definitions used by the KKK and other dopes and they were boring, so I didn’t post them.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tripping up on your non-linguistic naivete: “I just don’t like the idea of using a scientific term in a non-scientific way.” //// The term at issue is “race”- the whole point being its a social construct as one might separate from your “hard” science.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I just don’t like the idea of using a scientific term in a non-scientific way. //// In such instances, is anyone following the minority view being “unreasonable” or what? And “if” there are two reasonable positions rather than just your opinion or the highway, why would you argue the minority view doesn’t exist?===or have you changed that now?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nor do I like defining race differently for humans than we do for the other 10 million species on the planet. //// Check your linguistics. Thats done all the time.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You’ve moved “a little bit.” Your dogmatic statement hasn’t changed, but the language you use to discuss it has.
Scotty: can you explain how Blacks in America have higher arrest rates, higher incarceration rates, and lower life spans than whites, asians, hispanics, inuits, aboriganials or that other group I forget the name of?
I googled for genetic societies and found: The Genetics Society of America and their fine publication “Genetics.” A simple word search reveals race for humans and animals discussed as a matter of course.
There is just one example. There is a plethera.
http://www.genetics.org/content/112/1/79.full.pdf+html
“panel included DNAs identified by racial or geographic origin. Ten of these individuals are members of a Caucasian family and four are members of an Asian family.”
blowbo,
Reading comprehension much?
— Heywood Giablomi
I clicked on this link and sadly the comment numbers do not appear in my browser (FireFox 29.0.1). It appears to be just what I remembered: NOT what you represent.
Its a quote from one guy Jonathan Marks about what he thinks AND what he thinks carefully read ADMITS to the scientific basis for race: “(4) what was left – the component of human diversity that was not cultural, polymorphic, or clinal – was very small.” //// Its this very small component that no doubt is what many people call “race.” Cant tell as the footnoted material is not available.
Your error of wanting to call a tree a fish is expressly stated here as well: “Generally when it is used it is synonymous with subspecies.[58]” //// BS. If race were a sub species, the link I gave you and Dawkins would talk about sub-species. THEY DON”T, and neither do I. Many people would also disagree with the exclusion of clinical phenomenon that closely associate with race. EG–that the Mauri race has no skin cancer and it is rare in Blacks leaving such issues primarily of concern to Caucasians. IE==the incidence of skin cancer is highly apportioned by race, so lets not call that a racial characteristics, lets call that a clinical irrelevance. Reminds me of Dear Old Dad. He still doesn’t strike me as a racist, but he did used to comment when we watched boxing matches of tv that white guys always lost to blacks because the: “Negro fighters don’t bleed.” I know that is a false view of things, because I have seen negro fighters bleed. It is rare, and I think the other negro has an axe handle……. but still.
“Reason and faith are irreconcilable.” //// Thus saith Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Is faith any different in this case than stupidity or lying? A third option I suppose all to the same end: a failure to deal with reality. That reality being according to you that you can’t pick a Negro out of a crowd of Whites. I bet you can, and do, all the time. Thats why you refuse to say you can pick a black marble out of a bag of whites. Faith collides with reality—making you look foolish.
Lets see if you have faith on this issue as I think you have unavoidably admitted the your argument away: true or false: some people, including world renowned scientists, (Dawkins and EO Wilson for two and all those publishing in Genetics) believe and defend that race is an objective fact, and those who don’t INESCAPABLY ESTABLISH: that race is a definitional term.
Silly hooman.
blowbo, you like it when people quote you exactly so you can read your own words again. Delusions of grandeur much?
Irrelevant to my discussion of whether race exists as anything scientific, but OK.
Yes. Racism. Same thing that gets Sikh temples attacked when Muslims commit some terrorist act. Same thing that ignores when Christians commit some terrorist act.
Since you have repeatedly defined race as mostly skin color, would you mind explaining how Jews got preferentially put into gas chambers? If you were capable of critical thinking, you would see that this indicates that racism can exist in the absence of race. So, do you see it?
Here’s a good article that points out that all uses of race are inherently racist. Though, some fields must do so regardless of how tasteless and racist it is to do so. But, yes, race is subspecies. No, subspecies do not exist in humans. Yes, some small number of fields require the use of race only because we live in a racist society. And, further, the races themselves are not accurately defined or definable.
That’s my take on it. Your mileage is guaranteed to vary.
http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/anth372.html
But, do note these quotes from the article as they are very important to my personal reasons for believing in the nonexistence of races.
Please actually do the very unbobboesque task of reading these quotes in full. Do not deny having read them again later, as you just did with a prior post of mine.
Race is subspecies:
No biological races exist in humans:
Belief in races is racist:
Humorous aside, note the tree/fish reference. I had not read this particular article before or, to my memory, any other that referenced the two this way. Your definition of race comes under the header “folk taxonomy”. Sure you want to stay in that group?
Racial classifications are suspect and cannot be done accurately. No, you can’t pick a “black” person out of a group reliably.
More argument that race does not really exist in modern populations even if it may one have existed. (I personally think not, as does the author.)
Forensic anthropologists use race in describing skeletal remains. But, it’s accuracy is only about the same as for sex, which is surprisingly only 90%. So, they could pick out your “black” man 90% of the time, but may actually have a woman or a white person, once in ten times for each.
Your non-scientific definition is in direct contradiction to the biological definition:
Conclusion (supports us both):
The race concept will be prevalent, not actual races, which are subspecies and no longer exist in humans. Though, Neanderthals would be a separate race if a population of them were found, homo sapiens neandethalis was a different subspecies than homo sapiens sapiens.
I’ll stick to biology. You can have forensic anthropology.
You can’t have racism without identify what race it is that you are being racists about. This is absolutely true without exception as a matter of LOGIC. One of the consequential issues that would be fun to discuss except we can’t because you don’t have the marbles to do so.
ITS ALL DEFINITIONAL.
I used black and white skin color as a definition of race to dummy the discussion down to a level you could not deny. I didn’t think you would lie.
So…. jews. Not a “race” in my book, not a sub-species, but could well be an ethnicity. Weren’t the jews “defined” as anyone with a jewish grand parent up to the 16th degree…. or something like that? Jews being a religion… another something silly hoomans lie about and hate.
by and large, you can’t tell a jew by looking at them, neither could the Nazi’s. So, the Jews had to self identify and wear a yellow star. And if they tried to pass, their good catholic neighbors would turn them in: see that blond haired blue eyed person I have envied all my life?===well his mother was Jewish, go get him! And they did.
You can’t have racism without defining the race of people you wish to hate. Thats as clear and as easy to do as picking a black marble out of a bag of white ones.
“Racial classifications are suspect and cannot be done accurately. No, you can’t pick a “black” person out of a group reliably.” //// You can reliably pick black from white. Shades of brown which isn’t the issue… not so much.
Racial classifications are suspect and cannot be done accurately. No, you can’t pick a “black” person out of a group reliably. ///// Well, define reliably then explain that to the 2 Million Blacks held in Slavery or the 6 Million Jews lost in the Haulocaust.
What this kind of statement DEMONSTRATES is that indeed, you have to DEFINE WHAT RACE MEANS. Easy to do if you have an OVERRIDING GOAL to show it either does or does not exist. Define a tree as a fish and say that race is a sub species and therefore does not scientifically exist. Or define the races as everyone one else does, and they do.
Or–be an honest competent man of science and say: “It depends on what you mean by race. Define it.”
Easy Peasy.
“I’ll stick to biology. You can have forensic anthropology.” //// So, you deny the split of authority regarding the definition/existence/functionality of race in biology but admit its use in the SCIENCE of forensic anthropology (totally based on biology) but you still want to argue that race like every other word in any language there is, is not subject to the vagaries of having to be defined before you can talk about it???
Ha, ha. The Black Knight defends the pass once again.
Forensic anthropology is a branch of criminology. The definition of race being used in that soft science is “folk taxonomy”, far from science.
Moreover, if you read the link or the quotes from it that I posted, they strongly make the case that:
1. The definition of race in humans is a folk definition, i.e. “folk taxonomy”.
2. The definition itself is racist.
It is my conclusion that if you still argue for the use of race in human beings, you are, by definition, a racist.
10% error is not reliably, in my opinion.
You cannot tell a single Jew, absent costume from a single non-Jew now or ever. You would not get it right more often than totally random chance.
And, that definition will be inherently both racist and circular. Of course, you got it right you say, these people are black, these people are white. Then you use that as your definition and say that you did it perfectly. It’s circular.
And, it’s racist.
You can’t have racism by asking the question of whether race exists. For racism, you must first pre-suppose that races exist. Then, you use your racism to define them.
You are a racist.
The author did so. If you did not click through to the article, you probably missed it. I didn’t paste that part in. So, here it is now.
For the FIFTH TIME: a race is not a subspecies. Just like brown is not white or black.
I agree the worst of the standard issue racists will say that such and such a race aren’t even human or that they have different origins from their preferred root stock.
A scientist though, like Dawkins would point out that all humans have common origins in Africa with two different major emigrations to lands outside of Africa which over time by the operation of genetic drift and geographic isolation “started” the speciation of the group but continued cross breeding and not enough time has prevented that from occurring and what we are left with at the most is some statistical, clinical, and phenotypical evidence of that process.
EO Wilson is famous as a geneticist, racist, and eugenicist for observing what you and I can do right now in our backyards: ants have races. Soldier and worker ants. “Some” ants have these race differences together with very small genetic differences while some races appear simply as a matter of aging or hormonal/food differences. This race identification is also often called caste and is found in termites as well.
Everything is definitional. You are repeating failed arguments. IE==stop saying races can’t be identified because there are no subspeicies. Races BY DEFINITION are between “the original” starting genetic code, only a few changes, before the MANY changes that result in a subspecies. Can you “sense” the need for a continuum there? And that on that conintuum one can label the phenotype race? Just as we all do?
………………….and now we return to where we (“I”?) were some time back when I got pissed off at you and stopped posting. Same issue. Is bobbo a racist? But now we have had enough discussion that maybe to some degree you can see what my argument then meant. Both you and I are racists, or not, depending on how you define those terms. If a racist is defined as someone who can identify humans by racial categories (including a huge and growing one of mixed) then, yes I am a racist. If a racist is defined as someone who denies being able to identify humans by racial categories, then Scotty is a racists. If a racist is defined as someone who places people into racial categories and grants or withholds legal or social status based on that identification, then I trust that neither you or I are racists.
ymmv.
blowme,
And I keep showing you links that say it is. So, at least some scientists think the two are synonymous. It’s all definition blowbo.
In all of my bird books, where a bird species has multiple races, they call them races, then they give a trinomial Latin name for the subspecies.
In all species other than humans, race is subspecies.
Humans aren’t special in my book.
I bet you not only can, but always do. That’s what makes you a racist. You look at someone and instantly think black or white or Asian or Polynesian or Native American or Melanesian/Australian or Indian.
Would you really ever define racist as someone who does not believe in race?
But, I bet when you’re on public transport and a “black” man in a business suit walks on, you get a little bit nervous. And, I bet you don’t when a white guy in a hoodie gets on right behind him.
I get more nervous from the hoodie personally.
I also bet you generally do think differently about a person who is “black” than a person who is “white”.
Take the implicit associations test and see how you do. Don’t bother to tell me. I wouldn’t trust your answer to be honest after the whole cocaine thing.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Would you really ever define racist as someone who does not believe in race? //// I admit I raced a bit to get to the punchline, but this redrafting substituting the notion of “belief” with what was stated “being able to identify” once again is a failed attempt to avoid what is clear by calling it something it isn’t.
If you define race as subspecies, EVERYBODY agrees it doesn’t exist in humans. Got it?
Now: if you define race in humans as you did just above, then honest people will agree. Only the blind and those who think pretending the issue doesn’t exist, will not.
Read em and weep.
I define race as subspecies, as biologists do, especially those whose work is not primarily centered on humans. For me, defining humans differently than the rest of the animal kingdom is always a mistake.
That’s my opinion.
If you agree to recognize that there are scientists who use race to mean subspecies, I will concede that there are racists who define race as something with no hereditary or meaningful component. I will still disagree with such racists.
Watching an excellent movie right now: ” The Challenger Disaster” on the Science Channel. Its about the role of Richard Feynman in shutting NASA down. I mention it as it very much highlights that Management had one (wrong) definition of what a safety factor is while the engineers had a correct definition that sadly proved all too true. Especially relevant when it came to what a “failure” in the rubber o ring meant. In the movie, but maybe not in the report according to the wiki, the engineers thought a seal that cracked 1/3 of the way through has a safety factor of 3 whereas Feynman said: “By definition, a crack is not in the design specs, so the crack is a FAILURE, not a safety factor.” Interesting stuff. Everything is definitional. Could to know when they are heavily in play.
Just above Scotty you copy and paste what you claim to be the definition of RACE that science uses. Just simply read it. It starts off by defining what a subspecies is. There your problem right there. Your copy and paste defines subspecies=====> NOT RACE.
This is amplified and actually in the best read expressly avoids the definition of race when saying: “The ambiguity is great enough that no real taxonomic basis for subspecies can be supported, which is why the trinomen (which demarcates through subspecies) for all humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, regardless of one’s perceived race (Keita & Kittles 1997: 535). ///// Catch that? REGARDLESS OF ONES PERCEIVED RACE.
A thing is defined by what it IS—not what it is NOT.
The commentary thereafter is a bit off as well: “Those researchers who separate humanity into distinct races generally admit that the amount of admixture between perceived races has led to difficulty in determining “original” racial stocks” ///// They don’t copy and paste either so I’ll just bet that those researchers never separate humanity into “DISTINCT RACES” but rather something more ambiguous. I don’t know what original racial stocks even means.
Do you have anything along the lines of: “We define races as xyz…..”
Can you at least admit to the issue?
I showed at least two sources, the paper I linked recently and the wikipedia site on race that show that at least one common biological definition of race is subspecies. I showed that a common definition in the dictionary includes heredity. What the fuck more do you want??!!?
I can admit that there are other definitions of race. I don’t agree with any of them. I showed why I personally believe them to be incredibly stupid definitions.
But, can you not at least admit what I’ve shoved in your face repeatedly, that one definition of race is subspecies?
From this excellent paper, already linked above:
http://www.modernhumanorigins.net/anth372.html
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29
Get the logic of the above. I know it’s hard. But, race does not exist in humans because we’re all the same subspecies. Therefore, race is subspecies. Else, no one would make the argument.
Also from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29#Subspecies
From the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race
Common descent. This is NOT a social construct. This is hereditary.
Read bobbo read!!! It’s not that hard.
If everything is definitional to you, why don’t you try admitting that there are definitions that say race == subspecies? Why are stuck on the single most useless definition of race? Why are you stuck on one that gives anywhere between 3 and 37 different human races with heredity not being a factor in any of them? What a useless and stupid concept!
Why don’t you at least admit there are other definitions and subspecies is the most common biological one?
Oh, and yes, you are solidly a racist.
You don’t have to deny rights to different people based on whatever fuzzy definition you use for race. You just have to see people differently based on your flawed definition. You do.
You are a racist deliberately perpetuating a racist concept.
“I can admit that there are other definitions of race.” //// I win.
Can you admit that there is a biological definition of race? Can you admit that the definition is generally subspecies?
Oh and bobbo, following the social construct definition of race is still inherently racist. So, as long as you follow and advocate the use of the stupidest definition of race, I will continue to call you a racist. If you look at humans and see them as being members of races other than H. s. sapiens, you are a racist.
Scotty—for years now I have told you all you need to know to answer that question. ITS DEFINITIONAL.
Do you have any additional questions?
No blowbo. I need to hear you say it.
1. Do you acknowledge that there is a scientific definition of race that equates to subspecies?
2. Do you acknowledge that all living humans are members of a single race/subspecies known as Homo sapiens sapiens?
No blowbo. I need to hear you say it. //// Ha, ha. THAT is why I didn’t say “YOU have finally won.” (Winning as defined earlier in this thread.)
1. Do you acknowledge that there is a scientific definition of race that equates to subspecies? //// Of course there is. You provided many references to same. Its all definitional would still apply whether that is true or not.
2. Do you acknowledge that all living humans are members of a single race/subspecies known as Homo sapiens sapiens? //// Single race? No. Single subspecies? Yes.
The discussion I would like that we can’t have is how to tell when general scientific consensus more likely reveals a probably truth, or rather and in opposition, reveals something not true like a bias or political correctness.
What you are still wrestling with is the consequence of your own intelligence and reasoning ability up against the warm comfort of dogma.
Once you define race as subspecies, how do you explain that people do see and can tell the difference between an Inuit and an Aboriginal.
Evolution is a slow gradual process. From Original Stock to New species you pass thru subspecies. And as it is a gradual process, on either side of subspecies you have other gradations. Call it whatever you want “somewhere” on that continuum of slow change from Original Stock to Subspecies you and anyone honest can find “a few small changes” that phenotypically can be called race… or any other term you wish to give it. Its in humans, and all other life forms as well, because evolution is slow change over time (sic!).
We could further discuss why the trinomen “by defintion” thereby does not apply. All sorts of interesting issues, if you were open to what you understand on one level but reject on another. We could discuss the concept of certainty outside of pure mathematics and logic.
Its all definitional. Each and every word. Some more difficult to more fully appreciate than others. You have stumbled, been pushed, in the right direction, are falling back to your comfort zone. I really didn’t think it was this hard?
bobbo’s theme:
When I say its all definitional, I could be right or wrong, but I’m showing flexibility.
To be thick as a brick most often, if not exclusively means, to think there is only one answer.
You do the math.
You acknowledge that there is a definition of race that is subspecies. Presumably, you acknowledge that there there is only one subspecies still living in the Homo sapiens species. There were once others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Subspecies
There is variation in the one extant subspecies of humans as there are in many species. They do not equate to a scientific definition of race.
This is what another race of Homo sapiens might look like. This is a Neanderthal.
Here’s Rhodesian man.
Note the completely different shape of the faces of these people from any living h. sapiens. The protruding jaws. The arm lengths relative to body lengths. These are really what other human races looked like.
The variation today is insufficient to classify scientifically as race. This is why science has not agreed on what the races are. Are there 3? Are there 37? Are there some number in between? The range suggested by those who wanted to classify humans scientifically really is 3 – 37, as pointed out in one of the links I provided above. That’s a full decimal order of magnitude difference in the number of races before we even talk about which ones might be valid.
Does that say nothing to you?
Thick as a brick.
Yes. And since you keep coming back to just a single answer ….
“It depends on how you define the term, what you mean by using certain words….” //// I suppose that could be a single answer but it is addressing the issue of flexibility as if that were in opposition to being thick as a brick.
We are now into semantics. I know…. just what you wanted.
I’m drinking beer at 11AM…. bored. //// “The range suggested by those who wanted to classify humans scientifically really is 3 – 37, as pointed out in one of the links I provided above. That’s a full decimal order of magnitude difference in the number of races before we even talk about which ones might be valid.
Does that say nothing to you?” /// It totally says to me that the issue of race is “definitional.”
It is gob smacking weird to me that you can argue how some definitions are “invalid” as not being scientific, and not understand at a deeper level that that VERY STATEMENT is consistent with/proof of the notion that words are definitional. I don’t know what makes that FOUNDATIONAL concept so illusive for you. You use it, then you lose it. I continue to hope and assume that some day, something will click for you, and you will “get it.” Until such time………… you don’t.
And I “KNOW IT.” Because when you know that words are social constructs and therefor definitional, you can see its use and malfunction in practice……….just as you demonstrate. Its actually kind of beautiful…. in a weird way. What it is to be human.
It actually makes me…………………… sad.
blowbo,
There are words that are simply non-scientific where they should be scientific. I’ll give you a totally unrelated and likely less emotionally charged example.
Reptile. You think you know what it means. But, it’s not a family of species. Unlike mammal, which includes all members of the taxa mammalia, reptile does not correspond to a scientific taxa.
The taxa to which it should apply is saurapsid. The problem is that dinosaurs, having evolved from reptiles, are also saurapsids. So, the term reptile explicitly excludes a large chunk of the saurapsid family, even including over 10,000 species who are still alive today, the birds.
You asked:
Well, let’s take a step backward to what came just before this in the same post.
So, you admit that there is a biological definition of race that is synonymous with subspecies.
I assume you would concede that there is only one living subspecies of homo sapiens, homo sapiens sapiens.
Somehow though, your neurons misfire when you take the next logical step, there is only one biological race of humans, the human race, homo sapiens sapiens. I’m not sure how your brain completely explodes in drawing this simple and obvious conclusion from the prior two statements.
So, now back to your question.
How do I explain that bobbo believes he can see the difference in whatever he is labeling the races this evening?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a pale skinned person and calls that person white?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a pale skinned person and calls that person Inuit?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a pale skinned person and calls that person Asian?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a pale skinned person and calls that person Arab?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a pale skinned person and calls that person Jew?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a dark skinned person and calls that person black?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a dark skinned person and calls that person aboriginal?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a dark skinned person and calls that person Indian?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a dark skinned person and calls that person a Caribbean Islander?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a dark skinned person and calls that person black when in fact that person is Bantu?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a dark skinned person and calls that person black when in fact that person is Bushman?
How do I explain that bobbo sees a dark skinned person and calls that person black when in fact that person is Pygmy?
Those last three bobbo are probably all just black to you. The problem is that each of them is probably more distantly related to each other than you are to an aboriginal Australian.
Well, I’m sure the way bobbo sees it is that bobbo is the world’s best authority on race, always able to identify anyone’s race correctly 100% of the time, after all, bobbo has defined the races. So, bobbo defines what is black, calls someone black, and is, of course correct precisely because bobbo just defined that the person is black.
But, since there is only one biological race of humans, homo sapiens sapiens, my answer is far simpler and less circular than bobbo’s.
My answer is bobbo is a racist.
How else could bobbo see racial difference where biology says there is none? How else could bobbo lump groups of people by such superficial bullshit at skin color?
Racist doesn’t necessarily mean that you want to deny someone their constitutional rights because of the color of their skin. It could be as simple as looking at someone as black instead of merely human. I know. Some of your best friends are black. Right?
But, you still think of them as your black friends, don’t you?
Colors!!!…..I like colors. Gifs too.
Its a general recognition in “semantics” that two words should never mean exactly the same thing. If they do, you drop one and use the other.
You are fixating on what you say I believe, but I believe what I see and reason for myself, and what I read. When I read that leading experts and Nobel winners use the concept of race as part of their understanding of evolution, what else can I reasonably do at the minimum but to accept that some people believe race is a concept separate and apart from subspecies?
Just as you should.
brickbo,
You claim to be able to argue semantics and accept multiple positions. But, that’s just not true.
You have not yet indicated acceptance that there are also many biologists who agree that race does not exist in humans, or rather that there is just a single race.
You have yet to acknowledge that fact.
… to be thick as brick … ♫
Scotty, I’m sorry, but you are lowering the bar of stupid to unbelievable levels. You are joking …… right? “Just how long can I keep posting nonsense and get bobbo to keep responding?”
Whats the whole point of my position?… That all issues start by defining the words. If you define a word one way, you get one result. If you define it another way, you get a different result. That admits to your challenge whether I said it specifically or not.
But I did answer that question “almost” directly, or by inference that cannot be interpreted any other way in the very post you are responding to: “what else can I reasonably do at the minimum but to accept that SOME PEOPLE believe race is a concept separate and apart from subspecies?” That statements makes no sense at all outside the recognition that some, IF NOT MOST, people believe race is not a separate concept.
How incompetent with language, logic, linguistics are you?
I won’t do a simple review of above this to how many times I have answered that question directly or by unavoidable inference.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In similar mode, you still have not given a direct definition of what race is that most scientists say don’t exist because they aren’t subspecies. YOU FAIL to APPLY the rule that terms must be defined, and that when defined differently, you get different results. You agree with this LOGIC, then you say stupid things that violate this premise as with your current challenge answered above.
Your TAXONOMIC analysis and application is wholly irrelevant. I hope that we will all admit that there are “basically” two sexes for humans? Male and Female?? And people can see this and apply all kinds of stupid ideas to the reality that science does confirm. Its called sexism. As I reformulate your dogma for your enlightenment: you can’t have sexism without defining was sex is.
Turning to your misapplied science: sex is not in the taxonomic nomenclature/classification. Therefore it does not exist???? ///// You answer: well thats not what the trinomen is all about! …./// Exactly.
HOW STUPID THAT WOULD BE….. just as your position on race is.
How would make further points and examples, such as the resolution of cameras in space. 10 Meter resolution does not mean that cars or people don’t exist, only that the resolution does not go that precise. Same with 1 meter resolution…that doesn’t mean that license plates don’t exist. The trinomen has a resolution of 3. I’ll leave the analogy to you.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Emphasizing a different point, we have 10% of people being left handed. That physical difference that may not trigger your politically correct hysteria cannot be found in the trinomen… or even in “some very small differences” in the genome.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131001123943.htm
Scotty—I really don’t understand why you keep going around on this. You have admitted race can have more than one definition. Why does that not end this thread?
“In similar mode, you still have not given a direct definition of what race is that most scientists say don’t exist because they aren’t subspecies.” /// I want to correct that. It was an initial thought prepatory to making another point, then I posted prematurely. I planned to correct it if you responded to that point. But enough time has passed……….
It ties into our common sense and what I eyes show us: race. I made a very simple dichotomy for most of our discussion by using just white vs black. I actually “don’t like” the notion of RACISM either, so why go into details of race?….other than it shows why defining words is so important. I did add Aboriginal because Dawkins used it an Inuit in one of his recitations of the “standard races.”
Of interest to me is how you have complained from the start that I don’t use enough black skin categories and just above you added Bantu, Bushman, and Pygmy. I have no doubt at all these are additional races of man==all by common descent or hereditary which you make a big point of that makes no sense.
After agreeing with you that I was a racist DEPENDING on how you define it, you evidently got enough of a hard on to repeat it a few points later and to put it in capital red letters? Using colors to make particular words “stand out.” Yes, racists do that. But so does everyone with sighted eyeballs. Early on, I posted that you could have race without racism. I think you mean to say that anyone who is honest about having vision is a racist? Making the world mean nothing at all.
Racism is like sexism that way. I assume you recognize the two different sexes…does that make you a sexist in the pejorative way that term is meant? No… you aren’t. Like any other male, a bias here or there, but not and out and out sexist. Words mean what you define them as and if you can’t appreciate more than one definition…. you have limited yourself. A shallow understanding rather than a deeper one.
Its that simple, true, and honest.
bobbo,
I’m not sure where you live, but it has been a long time since the sex of the person at whom you are looking at in Manhattan has been obvious. The gender may be more obvious. But, the sex? You might have to do the patented Mick Dundee Australian test.
If you’re unwilling to do the grope, or the feigned accidental trip and grope, your best bet is to look at the hands. Or, better yet, just assume the gender is more correct than the sex anyway.
bobbo,
Unfortunately, I’m not joking. You have admitted that many biologists define race as subspecies. And yet, you keep explicitly denying the obvious conclusion. So, I keep pressing. I want to hear you admit that the biologists who state race is synonymous to subspecies deny that more than one race of humans is alive today.
That is what I’m pressing for.
I give up.
To me, all issues are “obvious”……. yet contested.
THAT defines a whole different magisteria.
I do apologize for my too many typos. I get misled reading my own scribblings. Thats not good.