DAFNz are Genetically Defined *Mutantz*

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

We're talking SCIENCE. Science defines NO types of
humans.

Not as far as YOU KNOW - and as far as I know - NOT YET.
Key words, babe.

I can't say what science might determine in the future.
I live now, and a I know what I know now. "Not yet"
means "no".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope. A person that is 1/4 black that looks in all ways
white - is the

type

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that PASSES for white - and is considered white by
anyone who sees him or her.

But any genetic definition of "black" will probably call
them "black" (and will probably also call some people who
have no ancestors from Africa in the last thousand years
"black"😉

Not necessarily. Hey, I'm not the one that "knows" there is
genetics for all this.

Look at the subject line. The racists KNOW that there is
genetics for all this, and they therefore KNOW what science
does NOT know, and are WRONG.

Quoted message said:

OK - two races: blue and brown - designated by eye color.
Blue is a blue. Brown might be a blue too, but we don't
know. He is classed with browns. He marries brown. He has
blue kid. That kid is a blue. That kid marries blue. That
can ONLY produce more blues. Got it?

If that were purely the case, then recessives would be bred
out of our genes by now. They aren't.

Quoted message said:

The brown is BRED OUT. Whatever genes there MAY OR MAY NOT
be - that define that "appareance" noted as "black" might
work like the blue and brown eyes work. You don't know. I
don't know. But let's look at the part blacks that become
white, look white, breed white. They forever breed white,
Bob. They marry white, their kids are white. The "black"
doesn't show up anymore. Apparently, it's BRED OUT.

But it isn't, in fact, as may be seen if one of the kids
marries a black.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"P.Comm" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >You mean, race MIGHT BE just a socially defined
>> >thing.
>>
>> Race as used by the posters in this discussion is a
>> socially defined thing.
>
>How do you know that?

Because I can never get them to define any scientific
definition of the races they are using.

They don't have that information. You know that if anyone
DID have it in the field - they'd not so easily come
forth with it. Or perhaps you

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

want to know that.

I know that it is false. While there might be political
pressure against it, we have innumerable examples of
science ignoring or overcoming political pressure. If
nothing else, racist scientists like Jensen would come out
with such a thing if it existed.

You see - WHY do you call Jensen a racist? I doubt his own
colleagues think of him in that light. He's still a
professor, respected. You don't see the forest for the trees
here, see later. Political pressure would NOT apply if they
ever found ANYTHING like this. >

Quoted message said:

There is lots of evidence that scientific results are
PHRASED in politically correct manner. But the science
still comes out.

They aren't just phrased - as Skeptical1 pointed out,
certain little tid bits are deemphasized and other things
are put in the forefront - leading to a false understanding.
It was either you or Alberto or ?? who posted an article
that actually REFDUTED the very things you were saying when
read by a person IN the field that really knew what was
being said - Skeptical1.

Now Bob, you're saying that science always comes out with
the facts - um, defense weaponry comes out with the facts
about what they have the capacity to do, eh? Heh. If such a
marker - genetic - was ever found, I KNOW that the first
people to take over the entire study would be the DOD - or
DIA. CIA? Guaranteed. NO ONE would know about it.

What OTHER freaking USE would such information have?
Knowing I have the genes to make brown, green, hazel, gray
or blue eyed kids - what the hell does that tell me other
than NOTHING? Useless information. Really. Defining people
by racial categories is here to stay Bob, even the damned
Chinese do it - whether or not WE can tell them apart from
Koreans or not, THEY CAN and DO it, too. That's what the
other guy was saying about TAXONOMY in general. Taxonomy
is not based on genetics either - not YET. But other than
that - it IS the social thing, which is "REAL" because it
has to do with normal brain development regarding ability
to recognize shapes in faces and type them (the brain DOES
it) - what the hell ELSE use is it? Maybe to medicine?
Gufaww. People who make WEAPONS would take it - I can
guarantee you that. >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because they are posting statistics based

Quoted message said:

on reported race, which is a socially defined thing.

I'm not so sure they are doing that. Jensen certainly
didn't use

"reported

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

race" at all. Neither did Carleton S. Coon.

Since he had no scientific definition of race, then
of course he used reported race. There simply is no
other choice.

Suggest you read "Races of Man" by Carleton S. Coon to see
what criteria he used. Definitely not self reporting.

All of the

Quoted message said:

non-scientific methods of determining race (which is all
there is) rely on someone making a subjective decision
based on limited information, and reporting it.

BUT SO IS TAXONOMY IN GENERAL - it's the SAME criteria, Bob.
People SEE cats are different from dogs. SEE. So they type
them as different what - Family, right? Yeah, Order is
Mammalia. What freaking criteria is there (wholly BOGUS)
that classes cartelaginous animals as vertebrates and lumps
them in with BONED animals? What criteria to separete
invertebrates from vertebrates in the first place? ONE
THING? The medical zoological book I have on invetebrate
zoology says the same thing - it's 100% CRITERIALESS!

"Division of the animal kingdom into vertebrates and
invetebrates is artificial and reflects human bias in
favor of man's own relatives. One characteristics of a
single subphylum of animals is used as the basis for
separation of the entire animal kingdom into two groups.
One could just as logically divide animals into molllusks
and non mollusks or arthropods and non arthropods. The
latter classification could be supported at least from the
standpoint of numbers, since approximately 85 percent of
all animals are arthropods!" TOUCHE "The artificiality of
the invetebrate concept is especially apparent when one
considers the vast and heterogenous assemblage of groups
that are lumped together in this category. There is not a
single positive characteristic that invetebrates hold in
common. The range in size, in structural diversity, and in
adaptations to different modes of existence is enormous.
Some invetebrates have common phylogenetic origins; others
are only remotely related. Some are much more closely
related to the vertebrates than to other invertebrate
groups. Dr. Robert D. Barnes, Professor of Zoology
"Invertebrate Zoology" textbook.

I'll add that I notice the BIAS in taxonomy all the time.
EUtheria? EUbacteria? LMAO. OH, the GOOD-blanks are related
more to us humans. LMAO. I used to find that very funny
long ago. >

Quoted message said:

The closest alternative is to use the new DNA test, which
are probabilistic and determine if one particular ancestor
has genes similar to current people living in Africa (who
are *defined* by reference standard to be "black"😉 But
this is one-drop-rule-ism carried to its extreme - if
mitochondrial DNA is used it is being based on the "race"
of your mother's mother's mother, and if it is based on
the Y chromosome, it is being based on the race of your
father's father's father, etc.

Right now, they want to make a haplotype map. At least they
SHOULD wait until they have all the data - and not publish
[censored] that's old and invalidated one month later. And then
what are they going to DO with this

USE is it when we don't even have proper health care in the
USA? Waste of money. What are they going to DO with this
haplotype info? For that matter, what are they going to DO
on Mars? Look around? At the cost of how many billions?
Speed of light travel is nowhere near having - and it's
UNFEASABLE - first of all, how would they get moving since
mass would make them TOO HEAVY to go anywhere? Plus it's too
slow to go anywhere. By the time they got back, civilization
that sent them into space might not even be here (the time
problem with speed of light travel). STUPID [censored]. VENTURISM.
Boys playing at being boys. Anyway... back on point.

If other sites are used, and a person

Quoted message said:

is mixed race, then some genes will presumably be "black"
genes and some "European" genes. The typical American
"black" who is mixed race does not have ancestors that
come from one particular village in West Africa as the
people who concoct such tests advertise, so that if they
get such a result, they are really testing one particular
member of a person's ancestry.

Best get on Phil Deitiker's mailing list if you really want
to know how much where and when humans are mixed and with
what. No, I'm not on it. NI.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I'd be willing to bet money that there is perhaps some
>SMALL thing

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>forensics guys or geneticists or whoever - know about
>that can

literally

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>tell them what "race" you are - and by that I mean,
>including the

general

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>appearance thing everyone in society uses to identify
>race. I'd bet

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>that.

I'll bet not. The reason is that the general appearance
thing means that some blacks who can "pass for white"
DO pass for white socially,

Perhaps whatever genes make them "look" other than white
- are just GONE

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then.

Not usually. If they marry "black", their offspring will
cover the gamut of appearances from coal black to light
skinned, etc.

If they marry white and keep marrying white, the "look" that
idenfies them as black will be gone - and that MIGHT - MIGHT
work the same way that brown/blue eyes works
(dominant/recessive). In other words, the very genes
themselves that make anything other than blue are GONE -
forever GONE.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know, heterozygocity, homozygocity? A person with
blue eyes, for instance, ONLY has genes to make more blue
eyes - not anything else.

That trick works because eye color is determined by only 1
or 2 genes, and has a strict dominant/recessive trait.
Skin color, I believe, has 4 genes involved, and there is
no strict dominance, so the number of possible skin colors
is very large.

Nope, you are wrong. The gene that makes PIGMENT is working.
There is no gene for blue or brown eyes, red or brown hair.
There are genes for PIGMENT and TYPES OF pigment -
melanocytes, different TYPES of melanocytes. Up to date! As
for skin color - once you get light, if you breed light - it
stays light. Two light people can not get a darker
offspring. Same mechanism. But that's pigment. Got nothing
to do with features! Race is defined SOCIALLY by FACIAL
FEATURE SHAPE PROPORTION RECOGNITION - NOT BY COLOR, Bob.
Any black would tell you that! Get OFF the color thing. I
used the eye thing as an example of how SOMETHING we know of
works. I'm explaining that blacks that "pass" as white no
longer have the black features that people recognize
(including blacks) as "black." It MIGHT work like the eye
color thing works - that is, once it's gone - IT IS GONE if
they continue to breed with people that lack it. That would
mean that two blacks with white, let's say James Arness type
white features would not have a kid with black features - IF
it works the same way! .

Other traits we associate with

Quoted message said:

"looking black" have at least that many, and some of them
arise in non-blacks (a friend of mine, as Irish as can be
for many generations, has hair as kinky as it comes. He
wears an Irish Afro %^)

How do you know what his ancestry is? You asked him? LMAO.
Very curley hair can be measured. Is his hair shaft FLAT
from cross section? That's how black hair is. FLAT. My hair
is well - y ou saw the photo (LMAO no bozo jokes please) -
but my hair shaft is ROUND on cross section. It could be the
shampoo I use, what I do when it's wet and how I let it dry,
climate here - who knows - but up north my hair was poker
straight. I also have permanent freckles, lots of them, and
beauty-marks where I never had them before - and that's
definitely due to climate here. And yes, I did ask a doctor
- of course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

whereas others socially and culturally emphasize their
African roots, and are considered black, even though in
appearance they would be classed alike.

Jensen and Coon didn't rely on that kind of thing.

They had no choice. It was based either on the person's
self-reported race, or on their own self-reported
judgement of racial appearance, or on the race of the
parents (also self-reported, with the added possibility of
illegitimacy).

Coon used facial feature measurements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I might have one of them confused with Brittany.

Heavy backpedal there. Neither of the two in question
looks in the least like Britney Spears.

Bob, I'm not quite sure what ANY of them look like. I heard
the "talk" on Stern's show and the names sound familiar. I'm
100% NOT INTO their music - heh - but I have no idea WHAT
their music is - rock or something I guess.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then you are a racist of another sort if you call a
person a BUM for

"acting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

like a bum."

Judging people based on behavior is not racism. Judging
people based on presumed ancestry is racism.

Judging people that "act black" according to blacks
themselves - is judging BEHAVIOR. It's what THEY call it.
Shall I call it, "acting like asocial, overly emote-
reactive, psychopaths lacking impulse control?" Heh - is
that better?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know, I'm sick of YOU saying what I can or can't do.
I know a few people specifically who could say "THAT is a
Jewish person" from seeing

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BACK of the person walking down a street. 100% accuracy.
Some people

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quite GOOD at that kind of thing. I have met Italian
Jews. I also know

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Italian that converted to Jew. The first one acts Jewish.
The second

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

acts Italian - but his wife acts Jewish.

How do their kids act? They are both Italian AND Jewish
(by ancestry). And they probably act "American".

Nope, they act Italian - for a clue watch the Sopranos.
I'm serious.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not hard to tell this. And stop telling me what I
can or can't tell. I'm sick of it. You remind me

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I wrote
down the god

damned

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
"couldn't see the

person

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

playing it." Oh, how could I do that. DUH.

That's ear training.

No, I could do that before anyone ever "taught" me what an E
or a C minor was - could do it as a tiny child even. It's
EARS PERIOD. But people have said "oh, that's impossible,
HOW do you do that?" Same thing. Good ears? It runs in the
family, too. Some folks are remarkably GOOD at guessing
background - incredibly good at it. Way better than I am.
Their brain's "facial recognition" faculties are inborn and
more developed than others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heh, put a newborn Israeli baby in an Italian home and
sure, it will grow up acting Italian.

If it is a Jewish (or Palestinian) baby, then you will
guess wrong by calling him Italian.

I said it's FAMILIAL - that's how it seems to remain in the
offspring - even the ones who don't speak a word of Italian
(except curses, of course). And it is definitely intuitive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sheesh. You want to knwo what acting Jewish is?

I know what "acting Jewish" is. I also know many non-
practicing Jews who don't act that way. And I know that
the kids of non-practicing Jews who marry non-Jews really
don't act that way. I'm married to an at-least-3rd
generation non-practicing Jew who knows less about Jewish
culture than I know.

You don't have to know a thing about Jewish culture. If you
are raised by people that express, move, facially express,
speak, tonations, etc etc etc - that way, the kid WILL speak
that way - people WILL pick up on it - some more than
others. In fact, same thning, familial, let a newborn baby
be adopted by Chicago Jews - and that baby will speak
Hebonics, LOL. The grown up baby will act Jewish. That
FAMILIAL - it's what it means - and it's how intuitive
people can "tell" that in THIS society. Not on the moon.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Watch THE NANNY and behold the mother, grandmother and
the nanny. (I love The Nanny). I'll say this much,
ISRAELIS DO NOT act that way: AT ALL! It's European and
American Jews

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"act Jewish."

Yet more than 90% of Israeli Jews are either European or
American Jews or the kids of at least one European or
American Jew. Yet you now admit that you can't look at how
they act and tell they are "Jewish".

People who can spot "he's Jewish" are spotting AMERICAN Jews
or European (from the European ghettos) Jews. What do you
NOT grasp about FAMILIAL? When moving to Israel, they adopt
a whole other kind of behavior - that simple.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most of them don't. By 3rd generation almost

Quoted message said:

none of them do, and in any case most of them have
married cross-culturally. We are all mongrels, here.

My kids were born in Russia. NO ONE who does not know
that they were adopted into this country can tell that
they aren't native born, except possibly some Russians.

Except possibly some Russians?

I haven't asked any lately who didn't already know my kids
were Russian. Several years ago, they still recognized
Russian well enough that they would instinctively react to
certain Russian phrases as a Russian would, which would be
revealing of their linguistic background, but I'm not sure
that they still would do so.

My kids don't look especially Russian in appearance.

Then they are adopted. I have a question - and it's legit.
It is known, very well known to parents that want to adopt,
but who want a white baby, that when advertising "RUSSIAN
BABIES," adoptive parents know they'll get white kids. Of
course, with TONS of black babies up for adoption right here
at home in the USA - heaps of parents desperate for kids
looked to Russia to adopt.

Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
many orphans here? Why not adopt a black American
baby, especially with your sense of having a DUTY to
them for the past

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (E Kurtz) wrote:
>> [email hidden] (E Kurtz) wrote:
>> >Race is usually described as "socially constructed"
>> >as though that were a refutation of the concept.
>> >But all taxonomies are socially constructed, in
>> >that there must be mutual agreement (possibly
>> >implicit) on which elements of reality are relevant
>> >in the given domain and which are not.
>
>Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> The elements used in defining races are arbitrary
>> and irrelevant.
>
>Again you make the mistake of supposing that races are
>"defined". A child growing up in the US does not learn
>of the existence of races and how to distinguish them
>by being presented with a definition. The distinctions
>are implicit in the culture; human pattern recognition
>does the rest.

Nonsense. The distinctions are NOT inherently present
in the culture, but are taught by racists.

THAT is a provable lie. The distinctions can be noticed,
for instance,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anyone moves into an area where two very obviously different-
looking

groups

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are there - one white and the other black. You'd have to
be blind not to notice it. It's not easy to notice it if
there isn't a LOT of these two types around to look at,
talk to, interact with and see everyday.

Hispanics

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

merely LOOK at me and assume I'm Hispanic - they have no
idea wherefrom,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they think in-general Hispanic. Europeans have to only
LOOK at me to

assume

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm East European - they definitely know I'm not west
European. Both

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong - but I can EYEBALL RECOGNIZE AND SEE WHY they
assume these things.

So what. They label you wrong, and that proves that the
distinctions are subjective.

No, it proves that FACIAL RECOGNITION is part of NORMAL
brain development - they guess me wrong because they usually
don't even know WHAT a Tatar is. They guess me RIGHT when ti
comes to lumping me in with people that DO look much like
me. The POINT to be reocgnized here is that they know - they
KNOW - that I'm NOT one of them due to visible differences -
or they assume I am one of them due to visible differences.
This is normal brain development - facial recognition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you are going by ancestry, then a person who is half
African, half European is as much a white person as
they are a black person. The racists don't think this
way, however.

Depends on how that person LOOKS. Let's say the person
LOOKS black.

Blacks

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would accept that person as black immediately because
they are inclusive

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not opposed to mixing.

Nor necessarily.

99%

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whites would NOT accept that person as white because they
are exclusive and opposed to mixing.

Maybe the whites you know, who all seem to be like the
racists posting here.

ALL the whites I know are either conservatives or liberals -
NONE are part of racist organizations and they have nothing
to do with such things. Feelings are RIGHT - whether you
LIKE them or not. Repressing feelings is unhealthy.

But I am white, and accept pretty much anything, and am not

Quoted message said:

opposed to mixing. Thus, by counterexample, your statement
is false. "Whites" do not such thing, because "whites"
don't exist except as a stereotype. (And remember that you
said above that "whites" accept you as "white" so don't
give me any [censored] about their exclusivity; racism in this
country is really a surrogate for social class).

No no, whites do not accept. Many whites THINK I'm white
also - and imo who cares if that's right or wrong. Tatars?
Turks? Are we white? Well, we are NOT BLACK - and that's
what the society sees, Bob.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tiger Woods - to quote the Thailander natives "Oh, his
mother is Thai - but he? He is NOT Thai. Not

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all. He's not Thai. He's black." Unanimous.

Not unanimous. To me, he is American.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Ancestry is important to some Americans, black and
>white.

Only racists.

That is a whopping arrogant statement on your part there.

It is a true statement.

Quoted message said:

It's judgemental as hell.

Tough.

I judge you to be idealistic to the point of insanity -
where you disparage normal development of the brain when it
comes to FACIAL recognition and PREFERENCE. That's an "F" on
that word, not an R." facial, as in face.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ancestry is very important to people in MANY places - I'd
say moreso in ALL patriarchal societies.

Ours isn't one.

COUGH! Yeah, like we have a malinist org for discrimination
aginast men, yeah right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Who are you to tell them that their ancestry is
>"irrelevant"?

An anti-racist.

More like a tree with no roots. And a tree with no roots is
a NON-tree - a dead thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, you are an arrogant lunatic. You'd impose your
idealism on people - most people in the WORLD come from
patriarchal societies - and in all

such

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

societies, ancestry is ALL.

In this country, we are an egalitarian society.

COUGH.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If their ancestry is important to them personally as
part of their family history, that is one thing.

If they wish to generalize and assume that people of a
certain ancestry share certain traits, then they'd
better a) be sure that genetics backs them up, because
it usually doesn't and b) keep it to themselves,
because it isn't important to the rest of us.

Far more people feel that way than people who do not.

I don't give a [censored] what people "think". That is social
definition; society can and will change, and is changing
as we speak.

Yeah, it sure is. All they need is the evangelical vote to
win these days - and they know it. So yeah, society is
changing. LMAO.

Quoted message said:

And I notice you have abandoned the pretense that race
isn't entirely social.

Huh? You lost me on that one. What pretense? I stand 100% by
what I wrote for our org - which you've read I guess. I
stand by that 100%. That's an official statement by ME, my
name on it. It's not a freaking dialogue on

IDEA if it's genetic - and neither do you! You refuse to
even acknoelwedge that you don't know. I know that "seeing
by race" is a social thing - DUH - people DO it - societies
DO it - therefore it is social? LMAO. But is it MORE than
just that? I don't know - YOU DO NOT KNOW either. I'm amazed
that you can NOT just say "YOU DO NOT KNOW." Even the
hardest line geneticists (real ones) had to admit that some
[censored] is not genetic - tho it seemed as if it was. Even the
hardest line environmentalists had to admit that SOME [censored]
is genetic, even tho it seemed like it could be changed.
Sure it might be changed - NO ONE speaks about "norm of
reaction" because they can't test humans like that. But even
the hardest line real experts in the actual field loosened
up. But here you are, Lil Ol Bob - and YOU KNOW. YOU
ABSOLUTELY KNOW. Man, you are a religious fanatic! You have
the mind of a religionist!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are in the minority here.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Racism is wrong.

What if feelings of racial kinship are RIGHT? What then,
Bob? There's another way to see that: siblings, family ---
cousins ---- 2nd cousins---- 3rd cousins ---- tribe? uh,
nation? Like kind? Heh. YOU DON'T KNOW. You can't even admit
you don't know. The fact is, that in homogenous nations
people are NOT clones at all. There is no racism either. Yet
everyone looks noticeably different.

I see clearly that WAY too many things that are normal
feelings and normal actions for normal people are being
branded "racism." They are NOT racism at all. You remind me
of the KGB, man. Freedom of choice, and freedom of
association are GOD GIVEN Rights according to our laws - and
I'd say in absolute terms even (whatever you wish to define
that Divine Spirit as is no matter) - even ANIMALS practice
it. What a person feels, they FEEL. Repressing what you feel
is BEING SICK. It's not subject to interrogation or
accusation by some KGB type dogma. FORCED segregation is the
same as FORCED integration. It's FORCED - and it's against
the WILL/SPIRIT/CHOICE of a person or people. That's my
bottom line. You remind me of some very

if he's gay or not unless he tries it - and then if he tried
it, th ey insist he'll like it. I'm the type of person to
throw that [censored] back in their faces if they pull it on me
and I can play psiwar on their heads way WAY better than
they can. YOU pull it on everyone in here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "clustering" based on physical appearance is only
loosely correlated to ancestry. As has been noted in
prior threads, Xhoisian

Here you go with that. There aren't any Xhoisian blacks
in the USA.

Wanna bet.

But the issue is not just blacks in the US.

Yes it is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

African blacks are genetically closer to Swedes in some
traits than they are to West African blacks.

And you might be genetically closer to a dog in some
traits, than you are

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any chimp. Dogs certainly get the same DISEASES humans
get (chimps do

not)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and dogs recognize human body language way better than
any chimps can do

it.

Quoted message said:

I suspect that you are wrong.

But you don't know. You might be genetically closer to
a WORM in some ways (spinal column) than chimps or dogs
or fish are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And we haven't talked about

Quoted message said:

Aboriginal Australians and other black-skinned
Polynesians.

They aren't here.

Wanna bet.

Quoted message said:

But if they were, they'd be absorbed into the black
population soon

enough.

Quoted message said:

Then the black population doesn't have the genetic traits
that are claimed for it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Discrimination based on appearance is always possible
unless we all look like clones of each other.

Yet that strangely never happened in homogenous societies
and countries.

We are not a homogenous society.

Not the point. Homogenous societies do NOT have clones in
them. They have people with various hair and eye colors,
they are of various heights, the women have various size
breasts, various weights. Racism doesn't exist in
homogenous societies. Obviously, the brain's facial
recognition natural ability doesn't see "OTHER" when they
see each other. That isn't something taught. That's
something inborn in the brain itself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

We're talking SCIENCE. Science defines NO types of
humans.

Not as far as YOU KNOW - and as far as I know - NOT YET.
Key words,

babe.

Quoted message said:

I can't say what science might determine in the future.
I live now, and a I know what I know now. "Not yet"
means "no".

As I said, I note that researchers seem to be working TOWARD
knowing such things. WHY?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Nope. A person that is 1/4 black that looks in all
>ways white - is

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

type

Quoted message said:

>that PASSES for white - and is considered white by
>anyone who sees him

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>her.

But any genetic definition of "black" will probably
call them "black" (and will probably also call some
people who have no ancestors from Africa in the last
thousand years "black"😉

Not necessarily. Hey, I'm not the one that "knows" there
is genetics for all this.

Look at the subject line. The racists KNOW that there is
genetics for all this, and they therefore KNOW what
science does NOT know, and are WRONG.

I don't quite REact to things as you do. LMAO - I just
noticed the subject line. Okee dokey.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK - two races: blue and brown - designated by eye color.
Blue is a blue. Brown might be a blue too, but we don't

know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He is classed with browns. He marries brown. He has blue
kid. That kid

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a blue. That kid marries blue. That can ONLY produce more
blues. Got

it?

Quoted message said:

If that were purely the case, then recessives would be
bred out of our genes by now. They aren't.

ER, you mean dominants would be bred out. They can be - very
easily too. Recessive is almost impossible to breed out. Or
very very hard to. Heh, they aren't bred out because no one
consciously sought to do that - er - well, no one DID it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The brown is BRED OUT. Whatever genes there MAY OR MAY
NOT be - that

define

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that "appareance" noted as "black" might work like the
blue and brown

eyes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

work. You don't know. I don't know. But let's look at the
part blacks that become white, look white, breed white.
They forever breed white,

Bob.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They marry white, their kids are white. The "black"
doesn't show up anymore. Apparently, it's BRED OUT.

But it isn't, in fact, as may be seen if one of the kids
marries a black.

You aren't LISTENING. IF a group of blue eyed people, say
under some kind of gov tyranny, were the only ones allowed
to breed - that country would become 100% blue eyed - IN ONE
GENERATION. Let us say that the regime lasted for a long
time and had the same laws about breeding. NO ONE in that
country will have anything but blue eyes. That's how that
works. That CAN BE done - very very easily. If two "blacks
that pass as whites, eg, of the type of James Arness" - they
might not be ABLE to have anything that looks black -
regarding features. that would be the case IF the features
thing works like the eye-color thing. Get it? What I'm
saying is not hard to understand unless you are:

1. incredibly stupid when it comes to even
rudimentary biology.
2. incredibly stupid - period - incabale of understand a
very simple concept.
3. emotionally so blinded that you are unable to read the
words I typed.

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

My kids don't look especially Russian in appearance.

Then they are adopted. I have a question - and it's legit.
It is known, very well known to parents that want to
adopt, but who want a white baby, that when advertising
"RUSSIAN BABIES," adoptive parents know they'll get white
kids. Of course, with TONS of black babies up for adoption
right here at home in the USA - heaps of parents desperate
for kids looked to Russia to adopt.

Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so many
orphans here? Why not adopt a black American baby,
especially with your sense of having a DUTY to them for
the past

This ought to be good...

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Nonsense. The distinctions are NOT inherently present
> in the culture, but are taught by racists.

THAT is a provable lie. The distinctions can be noticed,
for instance,

when

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anyone moves into an area where two very obviously different-
looking

groups

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are there - one white and the other black. You'd have to
be blind not to notice it. It's not easy to notice it if
there isn't a LOT of these two types around to look at,
talk to, interact with and see everyday.

Hispanics

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

merely LOOK at me and assume I'm Hispanic - they have no
idea wherefrom,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they think in-general Hispanic. Europeans have to only
LOOK at me to

assume

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm East European - they definitely know I'm not west
European. Both

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong - but I can EYEBALL RECOGNIZE AND SEE WHY they
assume these things.

So what. They label you wrong, and that proves that the
distinctions are subjective.

No, it proves that FACIAL RECOGNITION is part of NORMAL
brain development - they guess me wrong because they
usually don't even know WHAT a Tatar is.

Doesn't matter. They get the answer wrong. They decide that
you look like someone of a different "race" because they are
predisposed to assume that you have to look like someone
else. The correct answer, if they don't know what a Tatar
is, is that you don't look like anyone else. If they decide
that you look like someone else who is not Tatar, they
answer incorrectly.

Quoted message said:

They guess me RIGHT when ti comes to lumping me in with
people that DO look much like me. The POINT to be
reocgnized here is that they know - they KNOW - that I'm
NOT one of them due to visible differences - or they assume
I am one of them due to visible differences. This is normal
brain development - facial recognition.

All this means is that someone who has kinky hair and a flat
nose but no black ancestry might be classed as looking like
a black, which is the WRONG answer, showing that the
classification is subjective.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whites would NOT accept that person as white because
they are exclusive and opposed to mixing.

Maybe the whites you know, who all seem to be like the
racists posting here.

ALL the whites I know are either conservatives or liberals
- NONE are part of racist organizations and they have
nothing to do with such things.

I don't care whether they are part of racist organizations.
They apparently talk like racists, just like you do. You
may not be as virulently subhuman as the King, but you are
still a racist.

Quoted message said:

Feelings are RIGHT - whether you LIKE them or not.
Repressing feelings is unhealthy.

Whereas expressing them may be impolite.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is a whopping arrogant statement on your part
there.

It is a true statement.

Quoted message said:

It's judgemental as hell.

Tough.

I judge you to be idealistic to the point of insanity -
where you disparage normal development of the brain when it
comes to FACIAL recognition and PREFERENCE. That's an "F"
on that word, not an R." facial, as in face.

Recognizing similarity or difference in appearance is
natural. Classifying people into a limited number of groups
based on similarities or differences is racist. Assuming
that behavior is determined by membership in one of these
groups that is determined by appearance is very racist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ancestry is very important to people in MANY places -
I'd say moreso in ALL patriarchal societies.

Ours isn't one.

COUGH! Yeah, like we have a malinist org for discrimination
aginast men, yeah right.

Yep, we do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I notice you have abandoned the pretense that race
isn't entirely social.

Huh? You lost me on that one. What pretense? I stand 100%
by what I wrote for our org - which you've read I guess. I
stand by that 100%. That's an official statement by ME, my
name on it. It's not a freaking dialogue on

Quoted message said:

IDEA if it's genetic - and neither do you! You refuse to
even acknoelwedge that you don't know.

If someone doesn't know but says that something is true,
they are lying. No one *knows* any truth about race until
that scientific definition emerges, so all statements
about race at this point are false, except that there is
none. When the scientific definition emerges, if it
happens, then there will be race for those classified by
that definition, and "I don't know" for people not yet
classified by that definition. Without the definition,
even "I don't know" is a false answer - the answer is that
there are no defined races.

Quoted message said:

know that "seeing by race" is a social thing - DUH -
people DO it - societies DO it - therefore it is social?
LMAO. But is it MORE than just that? I don't know - YOU DO
NOT KNOW either.

Until scientists prove that there is, I know that
there isn't.

Quoted message said:

I'm amazed that you can NOT just say "YOU DO NOT KNOW."

I know that gravity makes apples fall. Now scientists may
someday come up with a new theory of gravitation that
will explain why in some circumstances an apple might not
fall, and my answer will change. Until then, I know that
apples fall.

There are some areas of life that I really know nothing
about, and can't find out much in a 5 minute web search. I
then answer "I don't know". Otherwise, I "know" the best
answer I can come up with.

Quoted message said:

YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW.

No. I don't "absolutely" know. I "presently" know, and will
gladly listen to correction from someone who has proper
evidence contrary to my knowledge. The racists don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are in the minority here.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Racism is wrong.

What if feelings of racial kinship are RIGHT? What
then, Bob?

Then they can go live in a country where racial kinship
means something. In this country, we are Americans.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wanna bet.

But the issue is not just blacks in the US.

Yes it is.

The racists don't just talk about blacks in the US. That is
because they have no case if they do so. They have to claim
that all blacks everywhere in the world are inherently
inferior to justify their silly prejudice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that you are wrong.

But you don't know. You might be genetically closer to a
WORM in some ways (spinal column) than chimps or dogs or
fish are.

If so, that would be evidence contrary to the theory of
evolution. If there is any trait where I am more like a dog
or a worm than like a chimpanzee because of genetic
ancestry, that would not accord with evolutionary theory,
because I am NOT in fact descended from dogs or worms.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They don't have that information. You know that if
anyone DID have it in the field - they'd not so easily
come forth with it. Or perhaps you

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

want to know that.

I know that it is false. While there might be political
pressure against it, we have innumerable examples of
science ignoring or overcoming political pressure. If
nothing else, racist scientists like Jensen would come
out with such a thing if it existed.

You see - WHY do you call Jensen a racist?

Because he is.

Quoted message said:

I doubt his own colleagues think of him in that light.

Yes.

sciencedaily.comarthur jensenOpen ↗

"jensen racist" gets 12000 hits on Google, so I'm sure there
are plenty more cites if you need them.

Quoted message said:

Jensen was condemned as racist in the late 1960s by a
generation of
academics reacting to the racist atrocities of the Second
World War.

Quoted message said:

He's still a professor, respected.

He's still a professor because of academic freedom in this
country. He is not respected.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is lots of evidence that scientific results are
PHRASED in politically correct manner. But the science
still comes out.

They aren't just phrased - as Skeptical1 pointed out,
certain little tid bits are deemphasized and other things
are put in the forefront - leading to a false
understanding.

That may be the case in the popularizations. But scientists
aren't as dumb as the lay public and they see the
implications both of what is said and what is not said.

It was either you or Alberto or ?? who posted an

Quoted message said:

article that actually REFDUTED the very things you were
saying when read by a person IN the field that really knew
what was being said - Skeptical1.

Skeptical1 is not "in the field". He is a substitute teacher
in Oakland CA schools.

Quoted message said:

Now Bob, you're saying that science always comes out with
the facts - um, defense weaponry comes out with the facts
about what they have the capacity to do, eh?

Weaponry is technology, not science. The science underlying
most defense weaponry is public. The engineering is
classified.

Quoted message said:

Heh. If such a marker - genetic - was ever found, I KNOW
that the first people to take over the entire study would
be the DOD - or DIA. CIA? Guaranteed. NO ONE would know
about it.

False. How would DoD or DIA or CIA know about it? They would
probably read about it on the Internet, where such things
typically appear first these days. They could take over all
the studies they want, but the information on the Internet
would still have been made public.

And why would they take it over?

Quoted message said:

What OTHER freaking USE would such information have?

Science does much research without particular concern for
whether it has any "use".

Quoted message said:

Knowing I have the genes to make brown, green, hazel, gray
or blue eyed kids - what the hell does that tell me other
than NOTHING? Useless information.

Useless to you perhaps. But quite useful to scientists
trying to understand human biology and evolution.

Quoted message said:

All of the

Quoted message said:

non-scientific methods of determining race (which is all
there is) rely on someone making a subjective decision
based on limited information, and reporting it.

BUT SO IS TAXONOMY IN GENERAL - it's the SAME
criteria, Bob.

Biological taxonomy is based on the capability to
interbreed, as well as on genetic isolation. Human beings
can freely interbreed and no "race" is genetically isolated.

Quoted message said:

People SEE cats are different from dogs. SEE. So they type
them as different what - Family, right? Yeah, Order is
Mammalia.

If cats interbred fertilely with dogs, then they would be
the same species.

Quoted message said:

What freaking criteria is there (wholly BOGUS) that classes
cartelaginous animals as vertebrates and lumps them in with
BONED animals?

Genetics

Quoted message said:

What criteria to separete invertebrates from vertebrates in
the first place?

Having a backbone?

Quoted message said:

ONE THING? The medical zoological book I have on
invetebrate zoology says the same thing - it's 100%
CRITERIALESS!

"Division of the animal kingdom into vertebrates and
invetebrates is artificial and reflects human bias in favor
of man's own relatives.

Yes. That is why biologists don't put a lot of emphasis on
that particular division.

Quoted message said:

One characteristics of a single subphylum of animals is
used as the basis for separation of the entire animal
kingdom into two groups. One could just as logically
divide animals into molllusks and non mollusks or
arthropods and non arthropods. The latter classification
could be supported at least from the standpoint of
numbers, since approximately 85 percent of all animals are
arthropods!" TOUCHE

I see nothing controversial.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The closest alternative is to use the new DNA test, which
are probabilistic and determine if one particular
ancestor has genes similar to current people living in
Africa (who are *defined* by reference standard to be
"black"😉 But this is one-drop-rule-ism carried to its
extreme - if mitochondrial DNA is used it is being based
on the "race" of your mother's mother's mother, and if it
is based on the Y chromosome, it is being based on the
race of your father's father's father, etc.

Right now, they want to make a haplotype map. At least they
SHOULD wait until they have all the data - and not publish
[censored] that's old and invalidated one month later. And then
what are they going to DO with this

Quoted message said:

USE is it when we don't even have proper health care in the
USA? Waste of money. What are they going to DO with this
haplotype info?

Science.

Science is done for the purpose of doing science, to
understand the universe. Whether someone can use this
information to make money is irrelevant to science (except
that it is sometimes easier to get funded if someone is
convinced that they will make money if the research is
successful).

Quoted message said:

For that matter, what are they going to DO on Mars?
Look around?

Science.

Quoted message said:

At the cost of how many billions?

No one knows.

Quoted message said:

Speed of light travel is nowhere near having - and it's
UNFEASABLE - first of all, how would they get moving since
mass would make them TOO HEAVY to go anywhere?

Without more science, this will be forever true.

Quoted message said:

Plus it's too slow to go anywhere. By the time they got
back, civilization that sent them into space might not even
be here (the time problem with speed of light travel).

So?

Quoted message said:

Other traits we associate with

Quoted message said:

"looking black" have at least that many, and some of them
arise in non-blacks (a friend of mine, as Irish as can be
for many generations, has hair as kinky as it comes. He
wears an Irish Afro %^)

How do you know what his ancestry is? You asked him?

Yes. We were good friends in college and for a couple of
decades afterwards. I've lost touch with him the last 5
years, alas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I might have one of them confused with Brittany.

Heavy backpedal there. Neither of the two in question
looks in the least like Britney Spears.

Bob, I'm not quite sure what ANY of them look like. I heard
the "talk" on Stern's show and the names sound familiar.
I'm 100% NOT INTO their music - heh - but I have no idea
WHAT their music is - rock or something I guess.

backpedaling furiously from your claim of a few days ago?

From your post of 4/25:

Quoted message said:

If she claims to be black and acts typically black then
blacks will accept her as black and so will everyone else.
If she claims she is not-black - then it will be left to
others to believe that and accept it. I've seen Paula
Abdul. That woman is white.

From Ivy Mike's post of 4/24:

Quoted message said:

Aren't allowed? Do explain. But I asked you about Harry
Belafonte, Paula Abdul and Mariah Carey...they are all
considered black, but the last two esp. are very non-black
in appearance.

From the picture on: paula-paula-Open ↗
abdul.net/html/biography.html

I cannot tell.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then you are a racist of another sort if you call a
person a BUM for

"acting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

like a bum."

Judging people based on behavior is not racism. Judging
people based on presumed ancestry is racism.

Judging people that "act black" according to blacks
themselves - is judging BEHAVIOR. It's what THEY call it.
Shall I call it, "acting like asocial, overly emote-
reactive, psychopaths lacking impulse control?" Heh - is
that better?

Yes, so long as you recognize that such behavior is not
universal to one race, nor restricted to one race, and that
there are forms of behavior that meet your description that
blacks would NOT call "acting black" and people who "act
black" who don't display behavior fitting your longer
description.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do their kids act? They are both Italian AND Jewish
(by ancestry). And they probably act "American".

Nope, they act Italian - for a clue watch the Sopranos.
I'm serious.

So am I. I know someone quite well who has Italian and
Jewish ancestry who does not act in the least like the
Sopranos.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not hard to tell this. And stop telling me what I
can or can't tell. I'm sick of it. You remind me

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I wrote
down the god

damned

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
"couldn't see the

person

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

playing it." Oh, how could I do that. DUH.

That's ear training.

No, I could do that before anyone ever "taught" me what an
E or a C minor was - could do it as a tiny child even.

You could not write down notes and chords until you were
taught musical notation.

My kid also has a natural ear. He could mimic someone's
playing on the saxophone perfectly, and yet didn't know E or
C minor. To write it down accurately using notation takes
training, which is called "ear training".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sheesh. You want to knwo what acting Jewish is?

I know what "acting Jewish" is. I also know many non-
practicing Jews who don't act that way. And I know that
the kids of non-practicing Jews who marry non-Jews really
don't act that way. I'm married to an at-least-3rd
generation non-practicing Jew who knows less about Jewish
culture than I know.

You don't have to know a thing about Jewish culture. If you
are raised by people that express, move, facially express,
speak, tonations, etc etc etc - that way, the kid WILL
speak that way - people WILL pick up on it - some more than
others. In fact, same thning, familial, let a newborn baby
be adopted by Chicago Jews - and that baby will speak
Hebonics, LOL. The grown up baby will act Jewish. That
FAMILIAL - it's what it means - and it's how intuitive
people can "tell" that in THIS society. Not on the moon.

So will the kid of Italian and Jewish ancestry act like the
Sopranos, are will he speak Hebonics?

Your claim is nonsense because it presumes that "families"
are of a pure ethnicity. Most of my friends did not marry
within their ethnicity. Their kids will not be raised in an
"Italian" family or a "Jewish family" or anything other than
an "American family".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet more than 90% of Israeli Jews are either European or
American Jews or the kids of at least one European or
American Jew. Yet you now admit that you can't look at
how they act and tell they are "Jewish".

People who can spot "he's Jewish" are spotting AMERICAN
Jews or European (from the European ghettos) Jews. What do
you NOT grasp about FAMILIAL? When moving to Israel, they
adopt a whole other kind of behavior - that simple.

Why do you presume that Jews in this country all adopt your
stereotypical behavior? If Jews moving to Israel can change
their behavior, then Jews who aren't practicing their
religion and culture certainly can.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I haven't asked any lately who didn't already know my
kids were Russian. Several years ago, they still
recognized Russian well enough that they would
instinctively react to certain Russian phrases as a
Russian would, which would be revealing of their
linguistic background, but I'm not sure that they still
would do so.

My kids don't look especially Russian in appearance.

Then they are adopted. I have a question - and it's legit.
It is known, very well known to parents that want to adopt,
but who want a white baby, that when advertising "RUSSIAN
BABIES," adoptive parents know they'll get white kids.

They'd be wrong. About a quarter of the Russian adoptive
kids I know look more like you than they look like the
stereotypical Russian. My kids look more like me than they
do the stereotypical Russian, but their looks weren't that
important to us.

Click on the upper left picture on this page frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index or look at the kids in this picture: frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index/22?id=50&type=1&lang= and you'll see the sorts of
kids that were typical for adoption.

There are white (Slavic) infants available from Russia, but
usually with higher health risks than the non-Slavics (if
the kids are available for adoption, there is generally a
reason - Russians prefer to adopt kids that look like them,
so mixed race kids and non-Slavics in Old Russia don't get
adopted. Kids who are Slavic often have birth defects or
high risk of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Quoted message said:

Of course, with TONS of black babies up for adoption right
here at home in the USA

Not that many, actually. Women in this country who carry
their babies to term usually want to keep them. More common
are older kids removed from their parents due to abuse or
neglect, and they can be of any color, but they are "at-
risk" adoptions because the birthparents often don't
willingly sign the papers. Then there are crack babies,
which are a challenge to raise, to say the least.

Quoted message said:

- heaps of parents desperate for kids looked to Russia
to adopt.

Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
many orphans here? Why not adopt a black American
baby, especially with your sense of having a DUTY to
them for the past

At the time, it was *much* faster adopting from Russia than
any kind of adoption in the US, and much easier to qualify;
many other programs did not accept parents in their 40s. My
best friend did adopt two mixed race infants, but they took
much longer than we were willing to wait, and they found
that there was some resistance to placing black kids in
white families with no ties to the black community.

In addition, we didn't want an infant due to our age, and
indeed wanted to adopt siblings (our kids were 6 and 5 when
we adopted them). The Russian program started the month that
we started considering adoption, and articles in the paper
on the special needs kids that were typically available fit
our interests. It took less than 2 days for the agency (the
one on the web page above) to identify kids for us once we
completed the home-study, and I flew to Russia 6 weeks later
(my wife had surgery and could not travel with me).

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

I don't care whether they are part of racist
organizations. They apparently talk like racists, just
like you do. You may not be as virulently subhuman as the
King, but you are still a racist.

According to you. According to me, I practice freedom of
choice and freedom of association - and those are my GOD
given rights as a human free-agent.

Yes, you have the God-given right to be a God-forsaken
racist. And I have the Constitutional right to call
you a racist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Feelings are RIGHT - whether you LIKE them or not.
Repressing feelings is unhealthy.

Whereas expressing them may be impolite.

Not expressing them or worse, expressing what's not felt is
a LIE - and it is repressive. This is a FREE SPEECH forum,
you know.

You have every right to express racist ideas. But I have
every right to consider you rude, crude, and subhuman
for doing so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Recognizing similarity or difference in appearance is
natural. Classifying people into a limited number of
groups based on similarities or differences is racist.

LMAO - no it's not. It's the same thing that's done in
TAXONONY as Kurtz TRIED to explain to you - you being too
damned stupid to understand what he even said. I spelled it
out for you with a quote from a zoology book in another
post. Go read it. GRASP it. Taxonomy is in fact the
classing of entire animals into LIMITED groups, based on
similarities or differences that they ARBITRARILY notice!
LMAO. The whole field of taxonomy is that. They don't use
genes at all (NOT YET).

Actually, in the last decade or so, they use genes a lot.

Quoted message said:

That I'll agree on. But groups of similar people are FREE
to self-determine their own NORMS of behavior - AND THEY DO
TEND TO DO THAT HERE. That's their CHOICE, Bob. You can't
get over on me for NOTICING it, LOL.

I get on your case for assuming that a random person who
looks like a member of a particular race will abide by what
your perceive as the behavioral norms of that race.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If someone doesn't know but says that something is true,
they are lying. No one *knows* any truth about race until
that scientific definition emerges,

No one knows any truth about the whole of TAXONOMIC
CLASSIFICATION of even PHYLA or subphyla - UNTIL the
science (genetics) comes forth!!!!! Realize that, please.

Science has no problem making changes when new information
invalidates old models.

Racists do.

Quoted message said:

so all statements about race at this point are

Quoted message said:

false, except that there is none. When the scientific
definition emerges, if it happens, then there will be
race for those classified by that definition, and "I
don't know" for people not yet classified by that
definition. Without the definition, even "I don't know"
is a false answer - the answer is that there are no
defined races.

Scientifically, there are none. OK - socially there are
most definitely defined TYPES of people - LMAO - and the
society tends to mislabel that "race." LMAO. Better?

The defined types differ in different parts of the world. In
some other countries, African ancestry would not be a
particular important grouping.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know that "seeing by race" is a social thing - DUH -
people DO it - societies DO it - therefore it is
social? LMAO. But is

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

MORE than just that? I don't know - YOU DO NOT KNOW
either.

Until scientists prove that there is, I know that
there isn't.

Science has to prove that SOCIETIES have a concept of
races?

The question, as you put it was "is it MORE than just that"?

Quoted message said:

Are you daft? Or unable to read what I just said? Facial
feature recognition (a combo of these features, not one or
two things - it's a definitive TYPE that's SEEN) is used by
SOCIETY to type people into various types.

Not all societies divide types the same way, and not all
members of any society abide by the typecasting.

Quoted message said:

Then why bother to even do taxonomy - or PRETEND to do it
since they use even SHABBIER criteria?

As a crude model to be used as a basis for more
sophisticated science.

Quoted message said:

Hey, if there is no such thing as race - then we do not
need affirmative action or anything like that. Can't have
it both ways - but you always manage to want it both ways.

If the racists would agree that there is no race, then
indeed we would not need affirmative action.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm amazed that you can NOT just say "YOU DO NOT KNOW."

I know that gravity makes apples fall.

Uh, heh heh - if the MASS of the apple was greater than the
MASS of the earth (no matter how large or small these
objects are to see) then the apple would not fall to the
earth. The earth would be pulled off its orbit by the
apple. Fyi.

Actually, relative mass doesn't matter. Even the tiny apple
has an effect on the earth's orbit.

My degree is in astrophysics; I rather doubt that you will
surprise me with a "fyi" in that field.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What if feelings of racial kinship are RIGHT? What
then, Bob?

Then they can go live in a country where racial kinship
means something. In this country, we are Americans.

And in this country, Americans can NOW practice freedom of
choice and freedom of association - on their PERSONAL TIME.
Got that? Only a tyrant would deprive them of this right.

I don't know any tyrants.

But a person exercising his rights in a thoroughly
reprehensible way is subject to everyone else exercising
their freedom to condemn reprehensible behavior, and only a
tyrant would deprive them of this right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If so, that would be evidence contrary to the theory of
evolution. If there is any trait where I am more like a
dog or a worm than like a chimpanzee because of genetic
ancestry, that would not accord with evolutionary theory,
because I am NOT in fact descended from dogs or worms.

You share a common ancestor with dogs and worms. There
might just be somethning in the genome that is MORE LIKE
worm or dog than chimp.

No, because the chimp would almost certainly have the same
thing in its genome, having split off from [censored] so recently
that some scientists now want to reclassify chimps as part
of genus [censored].

Quoted message said:

Two chemical factors have been discovered after a hundred-
year search: enzymatic proteins in a month old human
foetus. They have been called netrin-1 and netrin-2. Netrin
is Sanskrit for "One Who Guides." The netrins are closely
related to growth factors found in nematodes (roundworms),
which likewise influence and guide growth and migration of
the worm's sensory axons. After 600,000,000 years of
evolution between man and worm, the genetic code for worm
and human guidance enzymes is STILL over 50% IDENTICAL: a
startling and remarkable similarity in biology.

Netrin will also be found in chimps (and gorillas) and it
will be much closer to human netrin than either is to
nematode netrin.

Quoted message said:

If anything is supposed to distinguish humans from worms,
it is supposed to be the nervous system.

Really?

Quoted message said:

But that the formation of the human spinal cord in the
human foetus remains identical to the worm's came as a
surprise to many researchers who projected or imagined some
sort of great biological gulf between the 3 pound (1.36
kilogram) human brain and the pencil-eraser-size worm's
central nervous system.

That is why researchers are wise to avoid prejudice.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

> We're talking SCIENCE. Science defines NO types of
> humans.

Not as far as YOU KNOW - and as far as I know - NOT YET.
Key words,

babe.

Quoted message said:

I can't say what science might determine in the future.
I live now, and a I know what I know now. "Not yet"
means "no".

As I said, I note that researchers seem to be working
TOWARD knowing such things. WHY?

Why not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Look at the subject line. The racists KNOW that there is
genetics for all this, and they therefore KNOW what
science does NOT know, and are WRONG.

I don't quite REact to things as you do. LMAO - I just
noticed the subject line. Okee dokey.

In other words, you jumped into a discussion without knowing
what the issue is, because you like to defend racists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If that were purely the case, then recessives would be
bred out of our genes by now. They aren't.

ER, you mean dominants would be bred out. They can be -
very easily too. Recessive is almost impossible to breed
out. Or very very hard to. Heh, they aren't bred out
because no one consciously sought to do that - er - well,
no one DID it.

Dominants aren't any easier to breed out, because human
beings don't breed according to racist theories.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They marry white, their kids are white. The "black"
doesn't show up anymore. Apparently, it's BRED OUT.

But it isn't, in fact, as may be seen if one of the kids
marries a black.

You aren't LISTENING. IF a group of blue eyed people, say
under some kind of gov tyranny, were the only ones allowed
to breed - that country would become 100% blue eyed - IN
ONE GENERATION.

If the moon were made of green cheese, then all kinds of
weirdness might happen. But in point of fact, there is no
such tyranny, and humans don't behave or breed like that.

I live in the real world. In the real world we are evolving
towards all of us being mongrels.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

You see - WHY do you call Jensen a racist?

Bob LeChevalier <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Because he is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I doubt his own colleagues think of him in that light.

Quoted message said:

Yes.
sciencedaily.comarthur jensenOpen ↗

Gould is not a colleague of Jensen's; Gould is, or was, a
paleontologist; Jensen's field is, or was, psychometrics
(Gould is dead, Jensen retired.

Check out Jensen's superb rebuttal of Gould's ridiculous
book: debunker.comjensen.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

"jensen racist" gets 12000 hits on Google, so I'm sure
there are plenty more cites if you need them.

Quoted message said:

Jensen was condemned as racist in the late 1960s by a
generation of
academics reacting to the racist atrocities of the Second
World War.

Excellent point. The lingering effect of the Holocaust is
often lost in this debate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He's still a professor, respected.

He's still a professor because of academic freedom in this
country. He is not respected.

QUOTE During his academic career at UC Berkeley, including
the 30-plus years after he became "controversial," Jensen
received every promotion possible — even to "super - grades"
beyond the rank of full professor, which required
recommendation by a panel of distinguished international
experts not on the Berkeley faculty. Indeed, the closer one
gets to expert opinion in the relevant disciplines of
psychometrics and behavior genetics, the greater the support
for Jensen and his work; and each year, that support
increases. Of his more than 400 publications, none has been
in fringe journals, and the overwhelming majority have been
in the most prestigious peer - reviewed journals in the
relevant fields — journals such as Intelligence, Behavior
Genetics, Personality and Individual Differences, The
Psychological Bulletin, and Behavioral and Brain
Sciences—and in such authoritative works as The Encyclopedia
of Psychology and The Encyclopedia of Intelligence, where
articles are by the editor's invitation. In 1970 Jensen was
a founding member of the Behavior Genetics Association. He
has served as a consulting editor to both Intelligence and
Behavior Genetics, and published articles in their first
issues. Jensen is often asked to serve as a peer reviewer by
these and by many other academic journals because their
chief editors recognize the fairness and thoroughness with
which he treats every article sent to him, regardless of
whether or not it agrees with his own position. END QUOTE
"Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur
R. Jensen" Frank Miele (Senior Editor of "Skeptic"
magazine), Arthur Robert Jensen

Note to P.Comm: if you have not read this book, I would
recommend that you do, since it is good introduction to AJ,
both as a thinker and as a man. I would recommend it to BLC
also, but his mind is obviously made up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why did you not adopt an American baby - there are so
many orphans here? Why not adopt a black American baby,
especially with your sense of having a DUTY to them for
the past

This ought to be good...

Racial consciousness led to restrictions and even bans on
white parents adopting black babies, even when the
alternative was a succession of foster homes. The stated
belief was that white families would be unable to provide
black or bi-racial children with a healthy black identity.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Weaponry is technology, not science. The science
underlying most defense weaponry is public. The
engineering is classified.

Germ weapons, biological weapons, are biological science
- they are top secret. It kinda leaks out what the govs
HAVE after years of them having it and no one knowing
they had it.

Only because they don't want to know. People who pay
attention know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Heh. If such a marker - genetic - was ever found, I KNOW
that the first people to take over the entire study
would be the DOD - or DIA. CIA? Guaranteed. NO ONE would
know about it.

False. How would DoD or DIA or CIA know about it?

Lmao - I need to redefine "naive" just for you.

I spent 13 years working as a government contractor on the
edge of the intelligence field, in some cases with people
who were working IN the field. I have a reasonable handle
on what is done, what isn't done, and what could and
couldn't be done.

Quoted message said:

They would

Quoted message said:

probably read about it on the Internet, where such things
typically appear first these days. They could take over
all the studies they want, but the information on the
Internet would still have been made public.

Information on the internate is a double edged sword. We
have medical doctors - real ones, INSISTING that the gov
made AIDS and gave it to people. And we have more of them
saying the same thing and making it so damned absurd that
NO ONE but conspiracy kooks believe it. There is
information - and DISinformation. Government agencies like
the ones I mentioned use BOTH.

Intelligent people know how to filter, and how to check
sources, and are profoundly skeptical of things that aren't
consistent with their experience.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And why would they take it over?

Quoted message said:

What OTHER freaking USE would such information have?

Science does much research without particular concern for
whether it has any "use".

Bob - almost all, if not all, of our technology came from
weapons research.

Nope. A huge chunk came from NASA for example. Biotech is
largely privately developed. Computer tech is some of each.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Knowing I have the genes to make brown, green, hazel,
gray or blue eyed kids - what the hell does that tell me
other than NOTHING? Useless information.

Useless to you perhaps. But quite useful to scientists
trying to understand human biology and evolution.

Understand it for what purpose? Just to know it for the
sake of knowing?

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Funds spent on that kind of HOBBY?

Not a hobby. It is called "basic research", and we have an
army of a million or more college professors and their
graduate student slaves performing it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What criteria to separete invertebrates from vertebrates
in the first

place?

Quoted message said:

Having a backbone?

Not good enough - so say experts. That's not genes.

Whether you have a backbone or not is determined by genes.
Whether the difference is important enough to separate
animals into two groups is determined by sociology. In face,
the separation between vertebrates and invertebrates is NOT
very significant in science - it serves as an artificial
division of zoological science to compartmentalize
information.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ONE THING? The medical zoological book I have on
invetebrate zoology says the same thing - it's 100%
CRITERIALESS!

"Division of the animal kingdom into vertebrates and
invetebrates is artificial and reflects human bias in
favor of man's own relatives.

Yes. That is why biologists don't put a lot of emphasis
on that particular division.

As I said above. There are courses in vertebrate zoology and
invertebrate zoology because there is too much to cover in
one course, and they have to divide things somewhere.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One characteristics of a single subphylum of animals is
used as the basis for separation of the entire animal
kingdom into two groups. One could just

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

logically divide animals into molllusks and non mollusks
or arthropods

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

non arthropods. The latter classification could be
supported at least

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the standpoint of numbers, since approximately 85
percent of all animals

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

arthropods!" TOUCHE

I see nothing controversial.

YOU snipped. Nothing contro... they still use those
divisions.

For deciding what content to put in a textbook or
college course.

Quoted message said:

Genetics have not yet been done on these animals.

Here you go lecturing me on how the intelligence community
keeps secrets, and you can claim such ignorance. They have
done complete genetic sequences on LOTS of "lower animals"
while the human genome was being worked on. They have
partial genomes on hundreds of species if not thousands.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Right now, they want to make a haplotype map. At least
they SHOULD wait until they have all the data - and not
publish [censored] that's old and invalidated one month later.
And then what are they going to DO with

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

information? You know, it's like the Bushist Mars
pipedream - what the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

USE is it when we don't even have proper health care in
the USA? Waste

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

money. What are they going to DO with this
haplotype info?

Science.

Hobbyism.

Science that puts this country in front of the rest of
the world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Science is done for the purpose of doing science, to
understand the universe. Whether someone can use this
information to make money is irrelevant to science
(except that it is sometimes easier to get funded if
someone is convinced that they will make money if the
research is successful).

Imo - if it's done and it doesn't better the PEOPLE - then
it's hobbyism.

That's your utterly worthless opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For that matter, what are they going to DO on Mars? Look
around?

Science.

Ruibbish. How much money so far on FAILED missions there?
There is only so much money to go around. You can't have a
"better world" with governments wasting money on this kind
of - [censored]. From what I see of you - you are in favor of a
better world.

Knowledge is part of a better world.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speed of light travel is nowhere near having - and it's
UNFEASABLE - first of all, how would they get moving
since mass would

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them TOO HEAVY to go anywhere?

Without more science, this will be forever true.

LMAO - are you an idiot or what? More science is not going
to change the fact that mass increases if speed increases
like that. Go back to school, man.

Science, indeed that basic research that you call "hobbyism"
is what discovered that mass increase. Basic research can
probably also discover ways to get around the problems that
causes. Maybe not. But we cannot know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plus it's too slow to go anywhere. By the time they
got back, civilization that sent them into space might
not even

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

here (the time problem with speed of light travel).

So?

You are talking out of two sides of your mouth here. So
this, so what that. So what millions of Africans drop dead
from nothing BUT problems.

They'll all drop dead of something.

Quoted message said:

Not my problem. One HUGE So What. That's for admitting it.

Yep. I/We can't solve all the problems of the world,
especially since solving some will cause others.

And some of the solutions that we do find come from basic
research that you would call "hobbyism" that took place 20
or 50 years ago, but later proved relevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you know what his ancestry is? You asked him?

Yes. We were good friends in college and for a couple of
decades afterwards. I've lost touch with him the last 5
years, alas.

He probably doesn't even know his ancestry.

Probably at least as well as you know yours.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Judging people that "act black" according to blacks
themselves - is

judging

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BEHAVIOR. It's what THEY call it. Shall I call it,
"acting like

asocial,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

overly emote-reactive, psychopaths lacking impulse
control?" Heh - is

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

better?

Yes, so long as you recognize that such behavior is not
universal to one race, nor restricted to one race,

Well, you go tell blacks to stop calling all those things
"acting black" Bob - do NOT tell me about it because it's
not my problem and definitely NOT my concern. They call it
"acting black."

If I am ever in a conversation with a black who uses that
expression incorrectly, I will correct them. As it is, I am
in conversations with racists, not with blacks.

Quoted message said:

You know, everyone in the society that speaks lingo-speak,
casual, LET GO, relaxed speech in comfort (COMFORT - got
it?) knows what that expression means - just like once upon
a time everyone knew what groovy or ornry meant. Got it?

If people use language offensively, I will call them on it.

Right now it is you that I am conversing with, and you are
the one who offends.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> How do their kids act? They are both Italian AND
> Jewish (by ancestry). And they probably act
> "American".

Nope, they act Italian - for a clue watch the Sopranos.
I'm serious.

So am I. I know someone quite well who has Italian and
Jewish ancestry who does not act in the least like the
Sopranos.

Do you know what FAMILIAL means? Kids pick up the behavior,
nuances, etc, from the parents and it keeps going - and in
a community from everyone - and it keeps going. I might
think he does act that way - or a version of it - if I met
the guy. I told y ou to STOP assuming what I can or can't
do. I'm pretty damned good at sussing out people's
backgrounds. Sandy at the beach, blonde blue - fair as
hell, doesn't look a bit Italian at all and none of the
people she sits with are Italian - she talked to me for 10
minutes. "Are you Italian, Sandy?" Yup. She sure was. She's
been away from that for years, too. It was very subtle, but
it was there. So I might think this person you know DOES
act Italian. Of course no one can tell over the internet,
DUH. It's seen, intuited. Your name sounds French. But
then, this IS the internet/usenet.

My name IS French. My ancestry is mongrel, like the ancestry
of everyone I know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >It's not hard to tell this. And stop telling me what
> >I can or can't tell. I'm sick of it. You remind

me

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of
> >people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I
> >wrote down the god
damned
> >notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
> >"couldn't see the
person
> >playing it." Oh, how could I do that. DUH.
>
> That's ear training.

No, I could do that before anyone ever "taught" me
what an E or a C minor was - could do it as a tiny
child even.

You could not write down notes and chords until you were
taught musical notation.

God, you are a twisting distorter if ever I saw one. I
never said write down.

Your words above. Read them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I
> >wrote down the god

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

damned

^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
> >"couldn't see the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

person
> >playing it." Oh, how could I do that.

Quoted message said:

I never even said read. I could PLAY notes and chords the
first day a toy keyboard was brought into the home - FACT.
It had two octaves on it. I could hear a song and PLAY IT -
I had NO idea what the notes or chords were called - and
couldn't write or read anything. GOT IT NOW?

OK. So you lied earlier, when you used the words
highlighted above.

Quoted message said:

Just what is it you don't understand?

I understand the words you actually stated earlier, as
underlined above. And I understand what my son can do, which
is what you are describing now.

I thus understand that you are so busy arguing that you
cannot bother to take the trouble to make sure that your
words actually say what you intend, and not something
entirely different.

And I DON'T understand why anyone of reasonable intelligence
would not place a priority on being understood when they say
something.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So will the kid of Italian and Jewish ancestry act like
the Sopranos, are will he speak Hebonics?

Depends on how the parents act - how his peers in the
community act.

In other words, you can't tell, contrary to your earlier
claims. You said that someone with Italian ancestry would
act like the Sopranos. You did NOT say that they would
act like the Sopranos ONLY if their parents acted like
the Sopranos.

Since I don't know any REAL people that act like the
Sopranos, I guess I don't know any people with Italian
ancestry.

Except that I have Italian ancestry, among my mongrel past.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People who can spot "he's Jewish" are spotting AMERICAN
Jews or European (from the European ghettos) Jews. What
do you NOT grasp about FAMILIAL? When moving to Israel,
they adopt a whole other kind of behavior - that simple.

Why do you presume that Jews in this country all adopt
your stereotypical behavior?

Why does Fran Drescher, the producer of THE NANNY presume
that and cater that show to that?

Because it is entertaining?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They'd be wrong. About a quarter of the Russian adoptive
kids I know look more like you than they look like the
stereotypical Russian. My kids look more like me than
they do the stereotypical Russian, but their looks
weren't that important to us.

Ahem, stereotypical Russians are usually ENGLISH ACTORS -
or Czars actually related to the British Royalty.

Maybe that is where you get YOUR stereotypes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Click on the upper left picture on this page frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index

OMG, they are ADORABLE - tho the 3rd from the right is
blah. I'm talking about the kids shown at the top right
of the screen - put mouse over their images and they blow
up. Yup, when white folks want white babies, they'd LOVE
those kids.

Yet the second from the right would not be "white" to
most people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or look at the kids in this picture: frankfoundationcai.orgcgiOpen ↗
bin/index/22?id=50&type=1&lang= and you'll see the sorts
of kids that were typical for adoption.

The same kids are in the top right of the page there.
The ones on the far left are adorable - but harder to
clearly see.

The picture on the left shows a multi-racial adoptive
family Only one of the three kids, the left one, is
stereotypical "white".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are white (Slavic) infants available from Russia,
but usually with higher health risks than the non-Slavics
(if the kids are available for adoption, there is
generally a reason - Russians prefer to adopt kids that
look like them, so mixed race kids and non-Slavics in Old
Russia don't get adopted. Kids who are Slavic often have
birth defects or high risk of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Well, that's known NOW - it came out - it was on Law and
Order, LOL.

It was known in 1992 when I was one of the first few dozen
who adopted.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In addition, we didn't want an infant due to our age, and
indeed wanted to adopt siblings (our kids were 6 and 5
when we adopted them). The Russian program started the
month that we started considering adoption, and articles
in the paper on the special needs kids that were
typically available fit our interests. It took less than
2 days for the agency (the one on the web page above) to
identify kids for us once we completed the home-study,
and I flew to Russia 6 weeks later (my wife had surgery
and could not travel with me).

You got photos of your kids? OH PLEASE lemme see?

Not on the web.

Quoted message said:

Do you have any kids of your own in addition to the
adopted ones?

Nope.
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

> I don't care whether they are part of racist
> organizations. They apparently talk like racists, just
> like you do. You may not be as virulently subhuman as
> the King, but you are still a racist.

According to you. According to me, I practice freedom of
choice and

freedom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of association - and those are my GOD given rights as a
human free-agent.

Yes, you have the God-given right to be a God-forsaken
racist. And I have the Constitutional right to call you a
racist.

You should recognize that a RACIST is a person that HATES
other people designated "another race" - usually ALL of the
group, for NO reason at all.

Quoted message said:

Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
traits and capacities and that racial differences
produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

By meaning 2, if you have prejudice against someone because
of their race, you are a racist. You have indicated
prejudice against blacks BECAUSE they are black in how you
exercise your "freedom of choice".

You may not be as virulent a racist as the people who
start these threads, who clearly fit number 1. You
appear to believe MOST of number 1, including the
inferiority of blacks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That I'll agree on. But groups of similar people are
FREE to

self-determine

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their own NORMS of behavior - AND THEY DO TEND TO DO
THAT HERE. That's their CHOICE, Bob. You can't get over
on me for NOTICING it, LOL.

I get on your case for assuming that a random person who
looks like a member of a particular race will abide by
what your perceive as the behavioral norms of that race.

Clear out your ears. I said BLACKS call it ACTING BLACK -
producers of movies make movies - black producers, black
actors for a black audience (like Barber Shop I and II) -
and that is how they all ACT in those movies.

I don't care what THEY say. I go by what YOU say about
how YOU feel.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Scientifically, there are none. OK - socially there are
most definitely defined TYPES of people - LMAO - and the
society tends to mislabel that "race." LMAO. Better?

The defined types differ in different parts of the world.
In some other countries, African ancestry would not be a
particular important grouping.

It's not a particularly important grouping here either - I
believe I said that ages ago? It's simply a GROUPING. It's
a social problem in the USA for [censored]'s sakes (DUH to the
nth man).

Since it is a social problem, obviously it IS a particularly
important grouping here. If it were not, we could solve the
social problem by simply agreeing not to use that particular
grouping any more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not all societies divide types the same way, and not all
members of any society abide by the typecasting.

It's not type casting. People don't normally ASSUME anyone
that looks this or that way is gonne BE this or that way
in action.

Yes they do.

Quoted message said:

You're like a watchdog - like a KGB person without the
power - standing like The Sage on the Stage - pronouncing
JUDGEMENTS on people - and abusing the word "racist" and
hurling it at me when NOT ONE of the criteria for being a
"racist" FITS.

I disagree.

Quoted message said:

YOU are. You have the heart of a tyrant. You'd brand a
person a racist who never would/did discriminate against
ANYONE on a job (and yes, I was an office manager and could
have done it easily enough). I have never DONE or FELT the
things that would qualify me for the brand of racist.

You apparently don't read the [censored] you write sometimes.

Quoted message said:

I do not hate GROUPS of people

You prejudge individuals based on the race you perceive them
to be. That is racism.

It is difficult to NOT be a racist in this society, with
people yammering about race-based statistical differences.
But if you judge a person based on those statistics, that
is racist.

But I usually don't call a person racist because they do
that, because it cheapens the word. Rather, I use it only
for people who do that and think it isn't a bad thing. I
know that I've made judgements about people because of their
race - not often, but I have. I don't usually call myself
racist because I know that it is WRONG.

You don't think it is wrong.

That makes you a racist in my eyes.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

why did YOU jump into the convo?

Because it is fun to jump all over racists.

Quoted message said:

You felt it your DUTY to flip the coin from Hitlerist to
Stalinist maybe? Yup.

I'm reading a novel about Stalin right now. That you think
[censored] and Stalin were opposites is part of your
communication problem. As Gray says, they were both
"collectivists".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ER, you mean dominants would be bred out. They can be -
very easily too. Recessive is almost impossible to breed
out. Or very very hard to. Heh, they aren't bred out
because no one consciously sought to do that - er -
well, no one DID it.

Dominants aren't any easier to breed out, because human
beings don't breed according to racist theories.

There ya go again. It has nothing to do with racism.
Dominant genes producing characteristics can VERY easily be
bred out.

Not in humans, because humans aren't breed like livestock,
mated with artificial selection to produce or weed out
traits. And even if humans were penned up like breeding
livestock, they COULDN'T be bred like that because it takes
too long. Breeding takes many generations and no one can
stay alive long enough to supervise enough generations to
make a difference.

Quoted message said:

Ask any geneticist.

I know what is possible if you can control breeding. Human
breeding cannot be controlled.

Quoted message said:

You know, here you are doing a thing you do a lot (you are
fitting a pattern). You are saying that something can not
be done because people don't tend to do it.

There is no particular reason to believe that people will
*ever* accept breeding human beings like livestock and then
set up a controlled multigenerational program that will
implement such breeding, and then manage to maintain that
program over the many generations needed to get the results.

That would be hundreds of years of treating humans like
livestock, and making sure that they *cannot* breed except
with mates of the proper genetics.

It can't happen because human nature won't permit it.

Quoted message said:

ou can NOT breed out recessive genes. That is, there is NO
WAY you can breed out the blue eyes.

It is genetically possible. You could, IF you could control
breeding per the above worldwide. Just sterilize anyone who
has the blue eye recessive. If it could be done there might
be massive depopulation for a generation or two, but you'd
eliminate all blue-eyed genes.

But human beings would never accept it, so it won't happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You aren't LISTENING. IF a group of blue eyed people,
say under some kind of gov tyranny, were the only ones
allowed to breed - that country would become 100% blue
eyed - IN ONE GENERATION.

If the moon were made of green cheese, then all kinds of
weirdness might happen. But in point of fact, there is no
such tyranny, and humans don't behave or breed like that.

How do you know that they didn't do this once before? You
don't know it.

I know that human nature doesn't allow it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I live in the real world. In the real world we are
evolving towards all of us being mongrels.

This is not what DEMOGRAPHICS shows at all. Even 12 years
ago or so, maybe more, they noticed the demographics - and
it was the opposite of what you say.

The world is becoming more like Brazil.

Quoted message said:

I say FORCED segregation is as bad as FORCED integration.
Learn that. At least try to grasp the idea. A people will
be free - and if they are not allowed to SPEAK freely,
they will learn to LIE - but they DO with their feet and
their groins.

That's what I said above, as to why they can't breed
out traits.

Quoted message said:

True integration is MIXING/MATING. Not sharing a school
room or a neighborhood.

One comes before the other.

If you put people in long term contact in a school room or a
neighborhood some of them will mate. The black slaveowners
found that out, which is why most American blacks have some
white ancestry.

Do it for a few generations, and you won't be able to tell
what race anyone is.

Quoted message said:

As such - FORCED marriages/staying together - is AS BAD as
FORCED non-marriage. Get it yet?

Why do you think this is controversial or relevant. I don't
want to force anything. I just ridicule bad attitudes.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a reasonable handle on what is done, what isn't
done, and what could and couldn't be done.

No, you don't. Had you been around during ww2, you'd NOT be
one of the guys on the team with Oppenheimer. You'd be in
the public, as ignorant of it as everyone else was.

And you know this because ...?

Quoted message said:

You have no idea what engineered germs they have in stock.
That's biological warfare. You have no idea what chemicals
are in stock (chemical warfare). The TOP people are
recruited, sworn to secrecy. You are not the top anything.

And you know this because ...?

I am not claiming that I do, but for all you know I could be
someone with a high clearance who has precisely the sort of
access that you think I don't have.

I do live in the DC area, less than 5 miles from CIA and DIA
and a couple of other classified agency worksites, and only
10 miles from CIA headquarters. I'm qualified to do certain
work for those agencies, and in fact its probably a 50/50
shot that if I go back to work when the kids are grown, I
WILL be working with them. But of course then I wouldn't be
talking about it.

Quoted message said:

You are quite naive about human NATURE itself - and naive
and resistent as hell about what people DO when things are
FORCED on them that they have no honest way to get out of.

On the other hand, I am a professional who works in the
sorts of fields that the intelligence agencies use, and I
know the state of the art of the field.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Intelligent people know how to filter, and how to check
sources, and are profoundly skeptical of things that
aren't consistent with their experience.

The majority of blacks, including intelligent ones, believe
that AIDS was engineered or in some other way inflicted
upon their people. Are they naive and stupid? Or are they
hyper intuitive? Heh. Yes, they sure are! Experience -
tuskagee? Crack dumped by cia and the investigation that
was supposed to happen silenced? That's experience. Wanna
talk about naive and skepticalness to the point of being
retarded? NA make treaty with whites. Treaty broken. NA
make ANOTHER tready with whites. Treaty broken. Do they
make another one? Yup. Expeience apparently did NOT inform
them. USA makes treaty with Soviets. Soviets break it. US
is skeptical about treaties - but they continue to make
them? LMAO. Please. Go home. These WERE intelligent people
at the helm.

But somehow our intelligence community is a cut above
everyone else in their level of perfection, and also manages
to keep secrets perfectly.

Better wear your tin hat. The CIA may be watching you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Science does much research without particular concern
> for whether it has any "use".

Bob - almost all, if not all, of our technology came
from weapons

research.

Quoted message said:

Nope. A huge chunk came from NASA for example. Biotech
is largely privately developed. Computer tech is some
of each.

Designed for purposes that have nothing to do with
peace, per se.

Most is developed in order to make money.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funds spent on that kind of HOBBY?

Not a hobby. It is called "basic research", and we have
an army of a million or more college professors and their
graduate student slaves performing it.

Yes, and the TOP TOP people that might find some THING that
could be targeted specific to say, blue eyed people - would
be recruited and sworn to secrecy. Definitely not to work
on something for peace.

Why would anyone want to find something targeted "specific
to say blue eyed people"?

If someone came up with such a weapon, and it were found
out that it existed, the country that developed it would
find themselves compared with Nazi Germany. And such a
weapon could not be used without it being found out that
it existed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They'll all drop dead of something.

I agree - so let's stop wasting money over there with
worthless "help" for aids sufferers - and spend it HERE on
oh - improved ROADS instead.

We'll all get where we are going someday. No more reason to
spend the money on roads than AIDS, and we get far more bang
for the buck for AIDS research. It costs a couple of
$billion to replace a single bridge in the DC area, which is
probably more than is being spent on AIDS research.

But government spending money on AIDS has a direct benefit
to the taxpayer, because all those in this country who
suffer from AIDS end up costing society much more than the
research costs. Even a 10% drop in the costs for AIDS
treatment would more than pay for all the research. But we
don't know what particular research will lead to that 10%
drop, so we do it all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I am ever in a conversation with a black who uses that
expression incorrectly, I will correct them. As it is, I
am in conversations with racists, not with blacks.

As a matter of fact, if you don't personally know the
person behind the nick, you have no idea if you are
speaking to a black on here.

If they start talking about people "acting white", then I
can call them racists, and not worry about what color they
are, since it doesn't much matter to me what color they are.
It is a racist statement when spoken by anyone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You know, everyone in the society that speaks lingo-
speak, casual, LET GO, relaxed speech in comfort
(COMFORT - got it?) knows what that expression means -
just like once

upon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a time everyone knew what groovy or ornry meant. Got it?

If people use language offensively, I will call
them on it.

Right now it is you that I am conversing with, and you
are the one who offends.

Because you talk like a racist and defend racists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> You could not write down notes and chords until you
> were taught musical notation.

God, you are a twisting distorter if ever I saw one. I
never said write down.

Your words above. Read them.

Quoted message said:

> >> >people that insisted I was using MAGIC because I
> >> >wrote down the god

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

> >damned

^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

> >> >notes and chords to a song that I heard on TV and
> >> >"couldn't see the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoted message said:

> >person
> >> >playing it." Oh, how could I do that.

That was later on when PEOPLE (adults) saw me writing it.
Point is, without writing it, I could play it already.

That was the statement that I responded to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I never even said read. I could PLAY notes and chords
the first day a toy keyboard was brought into the home -
FACT. It had two octaves on

it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I could hear a song and PLAY IT - I had NO idea what the
notes or chords were called - and couldn't write or read
anything. GOT IT NOW?

OK. So you lied earlier, when you used the words
highlighted above.

I'm in a chit chat. PEOPLE SAID - do you think I meant
little kids?

I don't pretend to know what you are talking about most
of the time.

I respond to your words, which is the only clue I have to
your nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Sorry for not speaking Bob-precisely.

I guess that is what comes from having worked with
attempting to communicate precisely for almost 20 years.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Automobile insurance companies attribute the bad driving
statistics, of the under-age-25 group, to the ENTIRE group,
regardless of how well some of them actually drive. Ins
co's don't have the resources to check them all out
individually. These companies are NOT stupid. It's simply
common sense good business practice.

Bob will find this out when his teenage kids start driving.

My daughter got her license last week. But I knew it 30
years ago.

ANYONE with no driving history gets treated as high risk
when the first get a policy. My best friend, who had been
driving for years, was in Britain for years with the USAF.
When he and his wife returned home, their British insurance
history was useless. They paid the same premium rates that a
kid pays for their first couple of years.

Quoted message said:

Go ahead, Bob. Try giving your agent hell about his
"discrimination." Tell him he is equivalent to a
GDFkg_Racist_Idiot...

There is no racial discrimination involved. Kids grow out of
being new drivers.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

P.Comm said:

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You should recognize that a RACIST is a person that
HATES other people designated "another race" - usually
ALL of the group, for NO reason at

all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of
human traits

WHICH traits?

Human ones.

Physical ones? Or behavioral ones? Physical traits are

Quoted message said:

OBVIOUSLY genetic, DUH. Behavioral traits are obviously
NOT genetic.

The racists that you defend think so. You apparently don't
read MMD and the King's [censored] before agreeing with it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Never did it. Daffynition does not apply.

GOT IT?

Quoted message said:

By meaning 2, if you have prejudice against someone
because of their race, you are a racist. You have
indicated prejudice against blacks BECAUSE they are black
in how you exercise your "freedom of choice".

No I have not. I have not "indicated" anything except the
FACT that I never see blacks in any of the places I tend
to go to.

Do I have to prove you a liar again? Or per your excuses, a
chit-chatter who can't say what she really means?

You're not worth the time.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak
for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:
lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

"Bob LeChevalier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

P.Comm said:

Quoted message said:

>> Nonsense. The distinctions are NOT inherently
>> present in the

culture,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> but are taught by racists.
>
>THAT is a provable lie. The distinctions can be
>noticed, for

instance,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when

Quoted message said:

>anyone moves into an area where two very obviously different-
>looking

groups

Quoted message said:

>are there - one white and the other black. You'd have
>to be blind not

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>notice it. It's not easy to notice it if there isn't a
>LOT of these

two

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>types around to look at, talk to, interact with and
>see everyday.

Hispanics

Quoted message said:

>merely LOOK at me and assume I'm Hispanic - they have
>no idea

wherefrom,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but

Quoted message said:

>they think in-general Hispanic. Europeans have to only
>LOOK at me to

assume

Quoted message said:

>I'm East European - they definitely know I'm not west
>European. Both

are

Quoted message said:

>wrong - but I can EYEBALL RECOGNIZE AND SEE WHY they
>assume these

things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what. They label you wrong, and that proves that the
distinctions are subjective.

No, it proves that FACIAL RECOGNITION is part of
NORMAL brain

development -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they guess me wrong because they usually don't even know
WHAT a Tatar is.

Doesn't matter. They get the answer wrong. They decide
that you look like someone of a different "race" because
they are predisposed to assume that you have to look like
someone else. The correct answer, if they don't know what
a Tatar is, is that you don't look like anyone else. If
they decide that you look like someone else who is not
Tatar, they answer incorrectly.

No, you miss the point. They identify me as like them, or
not like them CORRECTLY - by use of that same intuitive
brain process. How do you think humans identify cats from
dogs, Bob? I can also identify that I look LIKE the ones who
think I'm of them - and DO NOT look like the ones who think
I'm not like them. I ALSO see that same things they are
seeing. THAT is the point and you are missing it. It's not
about a LABEL "E. Euro, Tatar, Hispanic." It's about LOOKS
and TYPES of looks. Categories that the BRAIN MAKES - and
that ability is there for some reason.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They guess me RIGHT when ti comes to lumping me in with
people that DO

look

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much like me. The POINT to be reocgnized here is that
they know - they KNOW - that I'm NOT one of them due to
visible differences - or they

assume

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am one of them due to visible differences. This is
normal brain development - facial recognition.

correction - know I'm one of them due to visible SAMENESS.

Quoted message said:

All this means is that someone who has kinky hair and a
flat nose but no black ancestry might be classed as
looking like a black, which is the WRONG answer, showing
that the classification is subjective.

So what? Kinky hair and a flat nose is not the whole
PICTURE. Perhaps you lack the brain ability to do that -
like tone deaf people are unable to KNOW what chords are
being played and notes by merely hearing them. Consider that
possibility.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Whites would NOT accept that person as white because
>they are exclusive and opposed to mixing.

Maybe the whites you know, who all seem to be like the
racists posting here.

ALL the whites I know are either conservatives or
liberals - NONE are

part

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of racist organizations and they have nothing to do with
such things.

I don't care whether they are part of racist
organizations. They apparently talk like racists, just
like you do. You may not be as virulently subhuman as the
King, but you are still a racist.

According to you. According to me, I practice freedom of
choice and freedom of association - and those are my GOD
given rights as a human free-agent. Eat THAT for dinner -
you little tyrant, you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Feelings are RIGHT - whether you LIKE them or not.
Repressing feelings

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

unhealthy.

Whereas expressing them may be impolite.

Not expressing them or worse, expressing what's not felt
is a LIE - and it is repressive. This is a FREE SPEECH
forum, you know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>That is a whopping arrogant statement on your part
>there.

It is a true statement.

>It's judgemental as hell.

Tough.

I judge you to be idealistic to the point of insanity -
where you

disparage

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

normal development of the brain when it comes to FACIAL
recognition and PREFERENCE. That's an "F" on that word,
not an R." facial, as in face.

Recognizing similarity or difference in appearance is
natural. Classifying people into a limited number of
groups based on similarities or differences is racist.

LMAO - no it's not. It's the same thing that's done in
TAXONONY as Kurtz TRIED to explain to you - you being too
damned stupid to understand what he even said. I spelled it
out for you with a quote from a zoology book in another
post. Go read it. GRASP it. Taxonomy is in fact the
classing of entire animals into LIMITED groups, based on
similarities or differences that they ARBITRARILY notice!
LMAO. The whole field of taxonomy is that. They don't use
genes at all (NOT YET).

Assuming that behavior is

Quoted message said:

determined by membership in one of these groups that is
determined by appearance is very racist.

That I'll agree on. But groups of similar people are FREE to
self-determine their own NORMS of behavior - AND THEY DO
TEND TO DO THAT HERE. That's their CHOICE, Bob. You can't
get over on me for NOTICING it, LOL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Ancestry is very important to people in MANY places -
>I'd say moreso in ALL patriarchal societies.

Ours isn't one.

COUGH! Yeah, like we have a malinist org for
discrimination aginast men, yeah right.

Yep, we do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I notice you have abandoned the pretense that race
isn't entirely social.

Huh? You lost me on that one. What pretense? I stand 100%
by what I

wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for our org - which you've read I guess. I stand by that
100%. That's

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

official statement by ME, my name on it. It's not a
freaking dialogue on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IDEA if it's genetic - and neither do you! You refuse
to even

acknoelwedge

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that you don't know.

If someone doesn't know but says that something is true,
they are lying. No one *knows* any truth about race until
that scientific definition emerges,

No one knows any truth about the whole of TAXONOMIC
CLASSIFICATION of even PHYLA or subphyla - UNTIL the science
(genetics) comes forth!!!!! Realize that, please.

so all statements about race at this point are

Quoted message said:

false, except that there is none. When the scientific
definition emerges, if it happens, then there will be race
for those classified by that definition, and "I don't
know" for people not yet classified by that definition.
Without the definition, even "I don't know" is a false
answer - the answer is that there are no defined races.

Scientifically, there are none. OK - socially there are most
definitely defined TYPES of people - LMAO - and the society
tends to mislabel that "race." LMAO. Better?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know that "seeing by race" is a social thing - DUH -
people DO it - societies DO it - therefore it is social?
LMAO. But is

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

MORE than just that? I don't know - YOU DO NOT KNOW
either.

Until scientists prove that there is, I know that
there isn't.

Science has to prove that SOCIETIES have a concept of races?
Are you daft? Or unable to read what I just said? Facial
feature recognition (a combo of these features, not one or
two things - it's a definitive TYPE that's SEEN) is used by
SOCIETY to type people into various types. The brain's
ability to do this is not in question here, scientifically,
btw. You are saying that because it's only social - it's not
real. LMAO. What I'm trying to tell you - what Kurtz tried
in vain to explain, is that TAXONOMY is done the same damned
way. You are saying it's NOT important. Jesus H. Kripes man.
Then why bother to even do taxonomy - or PRETEND to do it
since they use even SHABBIER criteria? Coon was a forensic
anthropologist, btw - he used the same things that
taxonomists use to classify other vertebrates!

Hey, if there is no such thing as race - then we do not need
affirmative action or anything like that. Can't have it both
ways - but you always manage to want it both ways.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm amazed that you can NOT just say "YOU DO NOT KNOW."

I know that gravity makes apples fall.

Uh, heh heh - if the MASS of the apple was greater than the
MASS of the earth (no matter how large or small these
objects are to see) then the apple would not fall to the
earth. The earth would be pulled off its orbit by the
apple. Fyi.

Now scientists may someday

Quoted message said:

come up with a new theory of gravitation that will explain
why in some circumstances an apple might not fall, and my
answer will change. Until then, I know that apples fall.

I just explained basic physics to you. MASS, Bob. MASS.

Quoted message said:

There are some areas of life that I really know nothing
about, and can't find out much in a 5 minute web search. I
then answer "I don't know". Otherwise, I "know" the best
answer I can come up with.

Quoted message said:

YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW.

No. I don't "absolutely" know. I "presently" know,
and will gladly listen to correction from someone who
has proper evidence contrary to my knowledge. The
racists don't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You are in the minority here.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Racism is wrong.

What if feelings of racial kinship are RIGHT? What
then, Bob?

Then they can go live in a country where racial kinship
means something. In this country, we are Americans.

And in this country, Americans can NOW practice freedom of
choice and freedom of association - on their PERSONAL TIME.
Got that? Only a tyrant would deprive them of this right.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wanna bet.

But the issue is not just blacks in the US.

Yes it is.

The racists don't just talk about blacks in the US. That
is because they have no case if they do so. They have to
claim that all blacks everywhere in the world are
inherently inferior to justify their silly prejudice.

I don't care what THEY do. THEY aren't on my mind; THEY
don't cause me to REact. Tyrants DO cause me to shove my
face in it (like now).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that you are wrong.

But you don't know. You might be genetically closer to a
WORM in some

ways

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(spinal column) than chimps or dogs or fish are.

If so, that would be evidence contrary to the theory of
evolution. If there is any trait where I am more like a
dog or a worm than like a chimpanzee because of genetic
ancestry, that would not accord with evolutionary theory,
because I am NOT in fact descended from dogs or worms.

You share a common ancestor with dogs and worms. There might
just be somethning in the genome that is MORE LIKE worm or
dog than chimp.

In some "restriction enzyme DNA" studies, GORILLAS come out
closer to humans than chimps! The data is hard to come by,
so they still regard gorillas as 2nd closest to humans,
chimps closest. Interesting. The studies are very hard, time
consuming and not often done - so then: WE DONT KNOW!

But there is an example for ya.

Two chemical factors have been discovered after a hundred-
year search: enzymatic proteins in a month old human foetus.
They have been called netrin-1 and netrin-2. Netrin is
Sanskrit for "One Who Guides." The netrins are closely
related to growth factors found in nematodes (roundworms),
which likewise influence and guide growth and migration of
the worm's sensory axons. After 600,000,000 years of
evolution between man and worm, the genetic code for worm
and human guidance enzymes is STILL over 50% IDENTICAL: a
startling and remarkable similarity in biology. If anything
is supposed to distinguish humans from worms, it is supposed
to be the nervous system. This similarity has caused several
biologists to start calling the human spinal cord "The Worm
Within Us." The migration of nerve axons in the human
foetus's spinal cord is IDENTICAL to the migration of
sensory apparatus in the worm's. Worms have long been the
primary subject of study of evolutionary biologists because
worms have consistently proven to be a link between primeval
single-cell organisms and multicellular ones such as fish
and people. But that the formation of the human spinal cord
in the human foetus remains identical to the worm's came as
a surprise to many researchers who projected or imagined
some sort of great biological gulf between the 3 pound (1.36
kilogram) human brain and the pencil-eraser-size worm's
central nervous system.

Quoted message said:

lojbab
--
lojbab [email hidden] Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The
Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not
speak for the organization.) Artificial language
Loglan/Lojban: lojban.orglojban.orgOpen ↗

Bob LeChevalier said:

P.Comm said:

Jensen was condemned as racist in the late 1960s by a
generation of
academics reacting to the racist atrocities of the Second
World War.

Quoted message said:

He's still a professor, respected.

He's still a professor because of academic freedom in this
country. He is not respected.

If the complete truth were known, Jensen is no doubt
*highly* respected for having the courage to speak the
truth, however unpleasant from the standpoint of
Political_Correctness. He is respected by those who know the
truth and are not in a position to safely speak out. For
example, the majority of those who engage in White_Flight -
that well-known REAL and MASSIVE phenomena that results in
parts of large cities being almost totally DAFN.....

Bob LeChevalier said:

P.Comm said:

That I'll agree on. But groups of similar people are FREE
to self-determine their own NORMS of behavior - AND THEY
DO TEND TO DO THAT HERE. That's their CHOICE, Bob. You
can't get over on me for NOTICING it, LOL.

I get on your case for assuming that a random person who
looks like a member of a particular race will abide by
what your perceive as the behavioral norms of that race.

Hey, Bob! Does your teenage daughter have a Driver's
License, yet? What racists are doing is no different than
auto insurance companies charging you more for a teenager
than an adult, even when both have perfect driving records.
The insurance companies assume teenagers have the average
driving characteristics of that age group. The companies do
not have the resources to checkout the drivers individually.
and the financial risks cannot be managed any other way.

Ditto for white peoples' rizkz associating with DAFNz. What
you call "racism" is merely the natural practice of
Common_Sense.......