U.s. To Seek Death Penalty In Boston Bombing Case

[PhuturePriest]

Brown hair is the result of biology.  Deciding that brown haired people all belong to a particular race is a social construction. 

 

If we made it one, it would clearly be superior to all the other hair-colored races.

[CrossCuT]

If we made it one, it would clearly be superior to all the other hair-colored races.

 

I think id agree with you there.

[NotreDame]

I don't know how many times I can say this.  Genetic variance in human beings is a real, biological thing. The racial categories that encapsulate some of that variance are not.  

 

Here. 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

 

That article is awesome:

 

Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.

 

Except I disagree that the motivation is a positive one, obviously, since I've repeatedly called you dumb for believing it.

[Semper Catholic]

Seriously, this is getting stupid to the point of being irredeemably boring.

Hasan, Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Judaism is both a race and a religion. Race is not a social construct. If these things have to be explained to you, then your brain is broken.

Deporting people with passports from countries that have a higher incidence of terrorism is not racist. It's common sense, but idiots like you call it racism because your brains don't work right.

It's not a false choice I'm presenting, it's the reality that US congress and senate unanimously chose to bomb an impoverished country of brown people which produced zero, none, nada of the 9/11 bombers. And proponents of playing the race card (Biden, Hillary) also voted to bomb Iraq, another country of brown people (which also produced zero, none, nada of the 9/11 bombers.)

Strangely, none of these people are called racist for their votes. Yet, I recommend we deport some immigrants and I'm... wait for it... racist. Of course, I was just trolling, because I knew that somebody out there was dumb enough to latch on to it, I just didn't think it was going to be you.

We are only having to debate whether to put this Russian kid to death because your genius neighbors in DC didn't have the sack or the brains to deport him and his welfare-receiving family after getting numerous, specific warnings from traditional intelligence channels.

As a result of their mind-blowing incompetence, we got a terrorist attack in a major US city, we have a stupid debate over what to do with this kid, and the government has a reason to throw out the bill of rights in the name of "security."

When we make stupid choices, we end up have to make really unfortunate choices later. This is one of those.

Merica.

[4588686]

That article is amesome:

 

Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.

 

Except I disagree that the motivation is a positive one, obviously, since I've repeatedly called you dumb for believing it.

 

 

I give up.  

Edited February 1, 2014 by Hasan

[4588686]

Merica.

 

 

'MERICA

[NotreDame]

I give up.  

 

You should after linking to that article... More gems:

 

The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

[NotreDame]

Merica.

 

Right... Because deporting people is stupid, but blowing them up in their home country is statesmanship...

[4588686]

You should after linking to that article... More gems:

 

The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

 

 

Right.  You understand that there is more than a single article in that link, right?  

[NotreDame]

Right.  You understand that there is more than a single article in that link, right?  

 

Yes, one written by a scientist that agrees with me.  Another that calls race an American invention exported to the rest of the world, who agrees with you. 

 

Did you read the link I gave you showing that you can test for this imaginary "race" using DNA with 99.99% accuracy? 

 

Ohhhh... that's right, it's not imaginary, its real, but just a social construct... which is why you can DNA test for it... Right...

Edited February 1, 2014 by NotreDame

[Ice_nine]

The Irish weren't considered White when they came here, now they are. Arabs are actually considered white, even though many of them are a bit darker than Europeans. I think we're witnessing the Hispanic population being pulled under the umbrella of whiteness (you know how they have a check box for "hispanic" or "non-hispanic.")

 

Or course we know one thing for sure, Blacks will never be considered White. That's just taking it too far.

 

I used to read a lot of literature on race and without getting bogged down on an internet debate, Hasan is more in line with what I remember studying. So, he gets my vote for this thread.

[CatherineM]

One of the guys who got the Nobel for discovering DNA got vilified for talking about genes and race.

[Nihil Obstat]

One of the guys who got the Nobel for discovering DNA got vilified for talking about genes and race.

Both Watson and Crick sound like rather unlikable people. Watson more so, anyway.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Provocative_Comments

 

 

• On October 25, 2007, Watson was compelled to retire as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's Long Island and from its board of directors, after he had been quoted in The Times the previous week as saying "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."^[45]

Edited February 2, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[PhuturePriest]

 

Both Watson and Crick sound like rather unlikable people. Watson more so, anyway.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson#Provocative_Comments

 

 

• On October 25, 2007, Watson was compelled to retire as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's Long Island and from its board of directors, after he had been quoted in The Times the previous week as saying "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."^[45]
•  

 

 

I don't know, Watson looks cuddly in this photo.

 

Edited February 2, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Semper Catholic]

The ultra conservative guy with WFB as an avatar is also a closet racist with "fuzzy science" to back up his ideas. I'm shocked. See you at Storm Front ND.