Thread: God Commands Racial Segregation--forbids Mongrelization

Originally Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd

There are only two racial classifications that matter in America and they are white and black. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/White05.htm

Nonsense. In modern international scientific discourse, Whites have European ancestry, Blacks are Sub-Saharan African, Caucasian includes whites, south asians and north africans. East Asians are a separate group including Thai, Chinese, Malay etc. Native Americans are usually separated.

Originally Posted by J0NAH

The two are one and the same. Scientists are and always have been racist, they work for the system after all.

What you are saying is obvious BS. How can operationalizing human geographic variation into races be "Eurocentric" in itself? The division would have to be accompanied by an assertion of European superiority, which Blumenbach did not make.

You are saying all science is "racist" because it associated with the system. First stop is define exactly what you mean by the word "racist". I've heard it used to describe people who use a race concept (which is scientifically valid) and to people who attach superiority to some races (which may also be scientifically valid).

Your trouble is that you think "racist" means untrue. It doesn't. It doesn't mean very much at all. Otherwise go ahead and define it, and demonstrate that Blumenbach was "racist".

Even the Falun Gong religion knows that racial mixing is not a good thing:
http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...bout-race.html

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Even the Falun Gong religion knows that racial mixing is not a good thing:
http://www.politicalforum.com/religi...bout-race.html

So (*)(*)(*)(*)ing WHAT?

Originally Posted by mikemikev

What you are saying is obvious BS. How can operationalizing human geographic variation into races be "Eurocentric" in itself? The division would have to be accompanied by an assertion of European superiority, which Blumenbach did not make.

You are saying all science is "racist" because it associated with the system. First stop is define exactly what you mean by the word "racist". I've heard it used to describe people who use a race concept (which is scientifically valid) and to people who attach superiority to some races (which may also be scientifically valid).

Your trouble is that you think "racist" means untrue. It doesn't. It doesn't mean very much at all. Otherwise go ahead and define it, and demonstrate that Blumenbach was "racist".

Ofcourse, Blumenbach was not a racist in the sense that he would have sanctioned the use of race as a criterion on which to base one's judgement of what an individual can accomplish, or the value of that person's life to the collective.

He is just the opposite of those against whom I argue, such as the fools who came up with the conclusion that Africans are, geneticly, far less intelligent than Europeans.

You and Anders Hoveland are quite the opposite of Blumenbach, and nowhere near his level of intellectual insight.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Ofcourse, Blumenbach was not a racist in the sense that he would have sanctioned the use of race as a criterion on which to base one's judgement of what an individual can accomplish, or the value of that person's life to the collective.

He is just the opposite of those against whom I argue, such as the fools who came up with the conclusion that Africans are, geneticly, far less intelligent than Europeans.

You and Anders Hoveland are quite the opposite of Blumenbach, and nowhere near his level of intellectual insight.

Hint: (somewhat ironic this) calling people "fools" is not a scientific argument.

So you are putting words into Blumenbach's mouth and hoping some of the cleverness rubs off? "Hmmm, I'm an idiot, I know, I'll pretend Blumenbach agrees with me then my nonsense will sound clever." Of course Blumenbach would actually disagree with you as would any reasonable person. In the absence of other information it is perfectly reasonable to judge an individual based on group qualities. We do this all the time for everything.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Hint: (somewhat ironic this) calling people "fools" is not a scientific argument.

Idiots who do not allow for the fact that there are health issues peculiar to impoverished populations, or populations in areas where malaria and trypanosomiasis are common are fools and sorry excuses for researchers.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Idiots who do not allow for the fact that there are health issues peculiar to impoverished populations, or populations in areas where malaria and trypanosomiasis are common are fools and sorry excuses for researchers.

It's an entirely irrelevant tangent to what we are discussing. I'll take it as an admission of defeat.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

It's an entirely irrelevant tangent to what we are discussing. I'll take it as an admission of defeat.

I like your style Mike, and the fact that your common sense rules the day here with this particular argument.

The problem is that the "science" which you offer up is crap, concocted by morons who have no idea how to test their crap. The result is crap.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

The problem is that the "science" which you offer up is crap, concocted by morons who have no idea how to test their crap. The result is crap.

Explain why it is crap. Do you understand that saying "your "science" is crap you are all morons" is not a counter argument?