Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-
jimmylogan wrote to Cougar428 <=-
One people, one race, one leader. I agree it wasn't a good thing. In
the US, if you really want to demean someone, you call them a Nazi. It
appears to happen over and over.
As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
STILL a lot of people that miss that point...
Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.
So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...
jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-
As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
STILL a lot of people that miss that point...
Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.
So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...
I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comes
down to how we define race.
Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: We must learn to live together
as brothers or perish together as fools.
So if we are talking taxonomy, sure - species vs. race. But if
we are talking about unity and worth? I still say: one race -
the human race.
I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comesThe Human Genome Project was not supposed to come to the conclusion that race was real. That was decided before it started.
down to how we define race.
Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said: We must learn to live together
as brothers or perish together as fools.
So if we are talking taxonomy, sure - species vs. race. But if
we are talking about unity and worth? I still say: one race -
the human race.
Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
Arelor wrote to jimmylogan <=-
@MSGID: <682E244A.37741.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <682D4AC7.74925.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
Re: race
By: jimmylogan to Gamgee on
Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm
Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
Race might be a social contruct with no significant biological basis,
but let me tell you nobody will mistake a throughbred for a
hispano-breton horse. And while we are at that, nobody will take a hispano-breton to a race, but they will have her pull a cart instead of the throughbred any day.
But even the idea that race lacks biological basis is thin because the origins of people can be traced via biological markers - that is the reason why we know gypsies come from India, for example, because they
are sufficiently distinct from other groups that their traits can be identified. And there are even hints that homo sapiens don't come from
a single ancestor either but from a number of family trees that evolved separatedly.
Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-
jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-
As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
STILL a lot of people that miss that point...
Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.
So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...
I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comes
down to how we define race.
Not really. There is a clear definition of what race is, and it's not open to your personal interpretation. It's biology/science, and
factual.
Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
Again, "biology" *is* science. There aren't two definitions. Species
is one thing, and race is another. You don't get to create your own definition.
But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.
When discussing scientific / technical things (of any sort), it's important to use proper terminology to avoid misunderstandings. There
is no such thing as the "human race". It really is that simple. There
is the human species, which has multiple races. That's how science
works. Words matter.
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: race
By: jimmylogan to Gamgee on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm
Witness today "scientists" now saying that sex is not a binary, that
the spectrum is real. Even popularisers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and
Bill Nye have supported this. Science has always been willing to
support whatever the regime needed.
The answer is obviously yes, as we use race ALL THE TIME. Even those
who say race does not exist, use it ALL THE TIME. Now, whether it
should be called "Race" or "ethnicity" or "group", well, thats just semantics.
Arelor wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Race might be a social contruct with no significant biological basis,
but let me tell you nobody will mistake a throughbred for a
hispano-breton horse. And while we are at that, nobody will take a hispano-breton to a race, but they will have her pull a cart instead of the throughbred any day.
But even the idea that race lacks biological basis is thin because the origins of people can be traced via biological markers - that is the reason why we know gypsies come from India, for example, because they
are sufficiently distinct from other groups that their traits can be identified.
And there are even hints that homo sapiens don't come from
a single ancestor either but from a number of family trees that evolved separatedly.
Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-
If I tell you "Robert is Black, Harrison is White and Li is Asian",
and then I
give you a photo of three men, people WILL be able to tell who is who just from
those descriptors alone. Even if I photoshop everyone to have the
same skin
colour, you'll still be able to tell.
This means that race exists. When people select actors for an advertisement, for "Diversity", they select on race.
You cannot then argue it does not exist, when people use racial signifiers ROUTINELY and SUCCESSFULLY to categorise people.
the spectrum is real. Even popularisers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have supported this. Science has always been willing to
the spectrum is real. Even popularisers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and
Bill Nye have supported this. Science has always been willing to
bill nye is not an authority on any of the stuff he speaks on. he's a weird fucker too.
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6830BF65.75023.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <682E5328.65499.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to Arelor <=-
If I tell you "Robert is Black, Harrison is White and Li is Asian",
and then I
give you a photo of three men, people WILL be able to tell who is who just from
those descriptors alone. Even if I photoshop everyone to have the
same skin
colour, you'll still be able to tell.
Yep - because we have been taught that dark skin = black race;
light skin = white race; etc.
And yeah, change the skin tone and you'll likely have an easy
time telling from facial features, unless you are looking
at a third or fourth generation 'mixed race.' In that case,
I dare say they may not be as easy to spot!
This means that race exists. When people select actors for an advertisement, for "Diversity", they select on race.
You cannot then argue it does not exist, when people use racial signifiers ROUTINELY and SUCCESSFULLY to categorise people.
My point is that they should NOT do this. People should be
identified by how they ARE and not how they LOOK.
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6830BF65.75016.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <682DCF01.65469.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
Re: race
By: jimmylogan to Gamgee on Tue May 20 2025 08:38 pm
Witness today "scientists" now saying that sex is not a binary, that
the spectrum is real. Even popularisers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and
Bill Nye have supported this. Science has always been willing to
support whatever the regime needed.
Another great example of 'scientists' saying things, based
on ideals rather than facts.
The answer is obviously yes, as we use race ALL THE TIME. Even those
who say race does not exist, use it ALL THE TIME. Now, whether it
should be called "Race" or "ethnicity" or "group", well, thats just semantics.
This I agree with. I think 'race' is a bad term. Cultural
group or something like that is better, in my opinion.
There are no 'white' people nor 'black' people. We all
have different levels of melanin in our bodies, so we
have different skin TONE. Some are darker; some are
lighter.
jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-
Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-
jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-
As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
STILL a lot of people that miss that point...
Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.
So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...
I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comes
down to how we define race.
Not really. There is a clear definition of what race is, and it's not open to your personal interpretation. It's biology/science, and
factual.
Can you give me an example? I've read a lot of references on
this tonight, and the general consensus has changed over time.
Race is now broadly considered a social construct rather than
a biological one.
Have you looked into the "one drop" rule? The geographical
theory? Do you consider races to be subspecies?
Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
Again, "biology" *is* science. There aren't two definitions. Species
is one thing, and race is another. You don't get to create your own definition.
You're right, I don't get to make up definitions. So whose do
we follow? Scientists today? Or scientists from the past? As
a wise man once said, science doesn't say anything - **scientists**
do. In other words, science is a process of gathering and interpreting data. If it always delivered absolute facts, its conclusions
wouldn't change over time.
But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.
When discussing scientific / technical things (of any sort), it's important to use proper terminology to avoid misunderstandings. There
is no such thing as the "human race". It really is that simple. There
is the human species, which has multiple races. That's how science
works. Words matter.
As for your point about "proper terminology," I agree that words
matter - which is why I checked a few sources. Here's how **dictionary.com** defines things:
**Species** A group of related individuals that resemble one
another, breed among themselves, and are biologically distinct
from other such groups. Also: a group of persons related by
common descent or heredity.
**Race** Multiple definitions:
1) A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
3a) *(no longer in technical use)* traditional divisions of humankind.
3b) An arbitrary classification based on physical characteristics
(skin, eye shape, etc.).
3c) A **socially constructed** category based on appearance,
ancestry, or shared culture.
6) *The human race* - humankind.
So... while you might not like the phrase 'human race,'
it's still used, even in formal dictionaries, as a synonym
for humankind. It carries spiritual and moral weight, and yes,
it still exists in scientific and educational language as a
broad reference to all people.
If you're discussing gene flow or breeding populations,
sure - use precise taxonomy. But if you're talking about
our shared humanity and dignity, I still say 'one race -
the human race' fits just fine.
Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
Re: Re: race
By: MRO to jimmylogan on Fri May 23 2025 02:21 pm
the spectrum is real. Even popularisers like Neil Degrasse Tyson and
Bill Nye have supported this. Science has always been willing to
bill nye is not an authority on any of the stuff he speaks on. he's a weird fucker too.
You replied to jimmylogan, but it looks like you quoted something from someone else (probably Boraxman?).
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
The "race is just a pigment of your imagination" was designed to
changes peoples attitudes, but it was the wrong approach. You can't
lie to people to change their attitudes, because they'll realise the
lie, and discard the lesson that accompanied the lie.
Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper,
underlying evil motivation behind it.
You cannot then argue it does not exist, when people use racial signifiers ROUTINELY and SUCCESSFULLY to categorise people.
My point is that they should NOT do this. People should be
identified by how they ARE and not how they LOOK.
Now it is incorrect to attribute a specific racial stereotype to an individual, if that is what you mean. However you obviously can tell peoples ancestry from sight alone. You'd know I'm European, and not
Asian or African or Australian Aboriginal by looking at me.
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
I think the 'lay person" understanding, is correct. When I say "lay person" I mean those who aren't trying to abide by a Politically
Correct view. People, free of any particular ideological motivation reflexively understand, that Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans kind
of belong to two distrinct groups, and within those, there are sub
groups. Nobody would see Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Japanese, and
see four wholly distinct groups, they would see two sets of two. This shows two levels of clustering. Clearly observable.
Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-
jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-
Gamgee wrote to jimmylogan <=-
jimmylogan wrote to Gamgee <=-
As for the 'one race' thing - we are ALL one "RACE" - there are
different ethnicities, but we are all human. I think there are
STILL a lot of people that miss that point...
Not exactly correct. We are *NOT* all one race. We (humans) are all
one *species*, but not all one *race*. Big difference.
So, I think you are among those who have missed that point...
I hear you, and I appreciate the correction, but I think this comes
down to how we define race.
Not really. There is a clear definition of what race is, and it's not open to your personal interpretation. It's biology/science, and
factual.
Can you give me an example? I've read a lot of references on
this tonight, and the general consensus has changed over time.
Race is now broadly considered a social construct rather than
a biological one.
Have you looked into the "one drop" rule? The geographical
theory? Do you consider races to be subspecies?
Biologically, you are right: humans are all one species: Homo sapiens. Scientifically, race is often considered a social construct with no significant biological basis. The Human Genome Project confirmed we
are over 99.9% genetically identical across all so-called races.
Again, "biology" *is* science. There aren't two definitions. Species
is one thing, and race is another. You don't get to create your own definition.
You're right, I don't get to make up definitions. So whose do
we follow? Scientists today? Or scientists from the past? As
a wise man once said, science doesn't say anything - **scientists**
do. In other words, science is a process of gathering and interpreting data. If it always delivered absolute facts, its conclusions
wouldn't change over time.
But my original point was more moral and spiritual: we are one
human race with different ethnicities, cultures, and appearances,
but all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That is not ignoring
our differences but instead it recognizes our shared humanity.
When discussing scientific / technical things (of any sort), it's important to use proper terminology to avoid misunderstandings. There
is no such thing as the "human race". It really is that simple. There
is the human species, which has multiple races. That's how science
works. Words matter.
As for your point about "proper terminology," I agree that words
matter - which is why I checked a few sources. Here's how **dictionary.com** defines things:
**Species** A group of related individuals that resemble one
another, breed among themselves, and are biologically distinct
from other such groups. Also: a group of persons related by
common descent or heredity.
**Race** Multiple definitions:
1) A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
3a) *(no longer in technical use)* traditional divisions of humankind.
3b) An arbitrary classification based on physical characteristics
(skin, eye shape, etc.).
3c) A **socially constructed** category based on appearance,
ancestry, or shared culture.
6) *The human race* - humankind.
So... while you might not like the phrase 'human race,'
it's still used, even in formal dictionaries, as a synonym
for humankind. It carries spiritual and moral weight, and yes,
it still exists in scientific and educational language as a
broad reference to all people.
If you're discussing gene flow or breeding populations,
sure - use precise taxonomy. But if you're talking about
our shared humanity and dignity, I still say 'one race -
the human race' fits just fine.
You can still say whatever you want. It doesn't change the facts about what species and race are. When you write words that you claim are "quotes" from a site like dictionary.com, but in reality *paraphrase*
what was there to suit your own needs, you become someone that I won't discuss the subject with any longer. Go back to school and actually
learn something, and quit trying to be a "social warrior". Bye.
... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
= Synchronet = Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6835DA59.75087.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <68313735.65565.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
The "race is just a pigment of your imagination" was designed to
changes peoples attitudes, but it was the wrong approach. You can't
lie to people to change their attitudes, because they'll realise the
lie, and discard the lesson that accompanied the lie.
Yep - because men are evil at heart. People WANT to be racists,
because it's easier.
Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper,
underlying evil motivation behind it.
Why horrendous?
Technically we are all from the same group of ancestors anyway.
Adam and Eve, specifically, but even after that, the eight on
the ark spawned the repopulation.
You cannot then argue it does not exist, when people use racial signifiers ROUTINELY and SUCCESSFULLY to categorise people.
My point is that they should NOT do this. People should be
identified by how they ARE and not how they LOOK.
Now it is incorrect to attribute a specific racial stereotype to an individual, if that is what you mean. However you obviously can tell peoples ancestry from sight alone. You'd know I'm European, and not
Asian or African or Australian Aboriginal by looking at me.
Ancestral - yes - but I look more white than anything, so should
I be blamed for slavery in the distant past? Should a 'black'
person be blamed for crime in another city?
These are stereotypes and have nothing to do with the
individual.
To be blunt, I was NOT raised this way. I was raised by a VERY
biggoted man - my father. In the south, it was normal. Thankfully
I have made my own decisions as I grew up and realized this was
NOT the proper way to think or act.
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
@MSGID: <6835DA59.75088.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
@REPLY: <68313739.65567.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Boraxman wrote to jimmylogan <=-
I think the 'lay person" understanding, is correct. When I say "lay person" I mean those who aren't trying to abide by a Politically
Correct view. People, free of any particular ideological motivation reflexively understand, that Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans kind
of belong to two distrinct groups, and within those, there are sub
groups. Nobody would see Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Japanese, and
see four wholly distinct groups, they would see two sets of two. This shows two levels of clustering. Clearly observable.
I don't deny that at all. If you go back to the Tower of Babal
account, people were staying together instead of spreading out
and repopulating the earth after the flood. God broke up their
language and they clustered at that point. They spread out
and over generations they got paler skin, darker skin, etc.
Facial features would cluster too. If you have people with
certain gene types (light hair dominant, dark regressive)
and they breed with another of the same, the offspring
will share this. Eventually the dark will be so far
regressive that it will only come up in RARE instances.
Now that's a basic way of saying it, but I hope you understand
what I'm saying...
jimmylogan wrote to Boraxman <=-
Some argue that when we all become "mixed" then this won't be an
issue, but that is a horrendous idea, and I think has a deeper,
underlying evil motivation behind it.
Why horrendous?
Technically we are all from the same group of ancestors anyway.
Adam and Eve, specifically, but even after that, the eight on
the ark spawned the repopulation.
I suppose we'll have white folks clinking to what used to be the status
quo and the rest of the county integrating cultures and ethnicities for
some time.
| Sysop: | xorek |
|---|---|
| Location: | Los Angeles, California |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 95:56:35 |
| Calls: | 12 |
| Calls today: | 12 |
| Files: | 1,501 |
| U/L today: |
2,952 files (526M bytes) |
| D/L today: |
359 files (8,192P bytes) |
| Messages: | 4,774 |
| Posted today: | 1 |