On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 02:15:13 -0000, "alypius m skinner"
Why did you pick that name?
Neither one of them sensible....
>1. What is racism? It seems to be a handy generic expletive which one can
>use against anyone who acknowledges the existence of genetic racial
>differences other than the obvious skin, hair, etc. Why is *no one* willing
>to define this word? Is it because it might then lose some of its utility as
>an all-purpose expletive to discredit those so labeled?
Damn. That's three questions already. Well, to answer your
question, no one seems to be able to define race in any scientific
way. There are no "genetic racial differences" until you can describe
what race is. Racism is merely the belief that the concept of race is
valid, which it obviously isn't.
Cultural attributes do not constitute race. They are simply cultural
attributes, which the simple-minded associate with recognizable
"racial" features. This simplifies their world, which they find too
complex to deal with.
>2. How much genetic difference exists between the subspecies of other
>animal species? I'll bet the answer is almost none; after all, even the
>genetic distance between humans and chimps is astonishingly miniscule.
>Moral: even tiny genetic differences may be important.
"Moral"? The distance between humans and chimps is so great that a
transfusion of chimp *** would knock you dead; your comment displays
an astonishing lack of knowledge about genetics - information that
dates back for decades, such as chromosome structure. (I won't
confuse you with big words like DNA).
If you want to try and divide the human race into "subspecies", try
and figure out what the word means. Do you understand even simple
terms like phylum, genus, or species? Do you know what they signify?
>The dirty little secret that no one wants to talk about: acknowledgement of
>racial differences is no longer based primarily on anecdote or mindless
>prejudice, contemporary scientific research into racial differences is not
>"pseudoscience," and belief in racial differences is no longer restricted to
>rednecks, hillbillies, or other stereotypes.
No, it's the guys who wear glasses with tape across the bridge, who
wear a gravy-stained tie with a flannel shirt, and carry a pipe to
"look sophisticated" at the local klavern, who rail on and on about
this kind of low-quotient foolishness. Real science is not conducted
as a "dirty little secret"; it is published and discussed, and you
aren't going to quote a recognized journal of science that published
any ***like that for peer review.
>Could the new genetic findings destabilize America's multiethnic society?
>Potentially, yes, and I suspect this is the underlying cause of opposition
>to the new findings. We may not like what we find out, but, in the words of
>one reluctant "convert," "Nature doesn't care what we want!"~Krazyal
Yep. Crazy all right.
Wayne "This is the kind of guy that thinks lighting off a fart makes
him a rocket scientist" Johnson