I don't judge a person by his race, just his character

[antipartisan]

Funny, I'm still waiting for someone to give me the characteristics of each group of "races" that all of you seem to hold dearly.

"the fact of blue-green does not negate the existence of either blue or green."

OK, since blue and green exists you will of couurse be able to define them for me. As in white race, hispanic race, black race, asian race, etc race.

sub-species of animals

Irrelevant but for sake of argument, sub species of animals are more clearly defined through features. Humans, not so much. AGAIN, please share those "racial" characteristics for me since you seem to have an easy time differentiating/classifying the various "races".

Here's a good one: if "race does not exist", how do we get affirmative action?

Wow I'm just amazed at the selective reading here. I didn't say "race" does not exist. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. I said it is a made up social phenomenon and has no biological bearing.

Affirmative action is just a biproduct of the social misnomer that is "race" and is a failed policy in and of itself. Taking into account "racial" discrimination doesn't redress discrimination; it only perpetuates it.

The point, which has been proven by your responses, is that the institutional racism is so deeply ingrained; that you refuse to look at the very simple fact that so called "racial differences" are significantly minor compared to the many other differences amongst so called "races". Yet society places more importance on "race".

As I said, a classification system has to have distinct grouping characteristics. None of you are even able to give me a vague one.

 

[IanC]

antipartisan-- I would love to discuss these matters with you. I will respond to your questions if you respond to mine.

The truth is that people have been led to believe that skin pigmentation is the most important discerning factor on intelligence and success. Much more if a discerning factor than current environment, individual parental skills, education level in the current environment, current culture, economy, and countless other traits.

When in fact, "race"=physical differences are completely insignificant to intelligence.

first off- skin colour is NOT the driving factor. the genes for skin colour don't influence intelligence or any of the other social and biological traits that show disparity between groups. the influence comes from continental genetic clusters, otherwise known as race. skin colour is a characteristic not a cause. so are eye colour and shape, hair colour and shape. all driven by the combinations of inhereited gene alleles that are common to specific continental cluster groups (races). intelligence is a trait that is dominated by the physical characteristics of the brain, which are under control of genes, which are under control of the continental cluster group's set of predominant alleles.

you brought up the AAA statement on race. it is mostly a political screed that chooses not to discuss most physical evidence of racial differences. what do you think of the letter sent to the Wall Street Journal by 50+ experts in the field of cognitive studies, or to the statement by the American Psychological Association?

Mainstream Science on Intelligence
Stalking the Wild Taboo -APA Statement on <CITE>The Bell Curve</CITE> - Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns

please feel free to ask any question you would like to, but please keep it to a narrow scope so that there can be a concise answer. for example, "how can there be races if there is a fuzzy border between groups?"

 

[52ndStreet]

Funny, I'm still waiting for someone to give me the characteristics of each group of "races" that all of you seem to hold dearly.

"the fact of blue-green does not negate the existence of either blue or green."

OK, since blue and green exists you will of couurse be able to define them for me. As in white race, hispanic race, black race, asian race, etc race.

sub-species of animals

Irrelevant but for sake of argument, sub species of animals are more clearly defined through features. Humans, not so much. AGAIN, please share those "racial" characteristics for me since you seem to have an easy time differentiating/classifying the various "races".

Here's a good one: if "race does not exist", how do we get affirmative action?

Wow I'm just amazed at the selective reading here. I didn't say "race" does not exist. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. I said it is a made up social phenomenon and has no biological bearing.

Affirmative action is just a biproduct of the social misnomer that is "race" and is a failed policy in and of itself. Taking into account "racial" discrimination doesn't redress discrimination; it only perpetuates it.

The point, which has been proven by your responses, is that the institutional racism is so deeply ingrained; that you refuse to look at the very simple fact that so called "racial differences" are significantly minor compared to the many other differences amongst so called "races". Yet society places more importance on "race".

As I said, a classification system has to have distinct grouping characteristics. None of you are even able to give me a vague one.

Physiological Anthropologists have found a extra muscle in the legs of Blacks, that no other race has. It is said to have developed over millions of years of hunting and gathering
in the African continent. Was this made up?, why didn't white people develop this additional muscle
in their legs?

Is this a "Characteristic unique unto the black race" , that could indicate a racial difference.? Did I make this up?

Those anthropologists you quoted are wrong, they have no hard evidence to maintain their claim.

Your logic is all wrong. There are differences between the races.
This is way Blacks tend to marry other blacks, and whites tend to marry other whites.
Your theory would never be accepted by any scientific journals, or periodicals.

 

[antipartisan]

52nd. You again are not even reading my posts. A) I never said there is zero difference, I said "racial" differences are insignificant. B) For about the 3rd time now, you've said "Your theory". Not my theory and sorry to break it to you, but they're already in many peer-reviewed and scientific articles.

Also you have an obvious emotional bias based on your posts in other threads. Sorry but as far as this discussion, I have little patience for people who post things such as, "blacks should marry blacks" or "whites are destroying the black race". Just as much as I have no patience for people who say, "blacks are stupid".

When you can discuss critically, get back to me.

antipartisan-- I would love to discuss these matters with you. I will respond to your questions if you respond to mine.

IanC Thank you and finally, someone who takes the time to read and then answer, rather than kick and scream. Basically I'm siding with the anthropologists' findings and you're not, so we will never change eachother's minds; but I still think it's worth a discussion. Sorry in advance if I missed any of your main points, but here's what I'm saying in a nutshell. I'll try to keep it short&organized:

1. The biological and genetic differences using "racial classification" are insignificant compared to the differences in many other factors that determine intelligence and success, such as environment which include parenting skills, education, ghetto or rich neighborhood, many other factors.

2. The biological differences using "racial classification" are insignificant, yet it is used to justify major social agendas, collect data, and unnecessarily keep "the races" divided.

Now let's say for the sake of argument I'm wrong, and genetic difference among "races" plays a bigger part....

3. "How can there be races if there is a fuzzy border between groups?". This question I've been posing here all along, with nobody answering. Also how do you validate any data based on these "fuzzy groupings"?

4. With the increase in people who are "racially" mixed (some who acknowledge it & some who are mixed but do not acknowledge like most "Blacks" in the US who have approx 20% "white" blood), how much longer do we go about using "racial classification" as valid data? Wouldn't the addition of mixed people increase the "fuzziness" of an already fuzzy grouping system?

skin colour is a characteristic not a cause. so are eye colour and shape, hair colour and shape. all driven by the combinations of inhereited gene alleles that are common to specific continental cluster groups (races). intelligence is a trait that is dominated by the physical characteristics of the brain, which are under control of genes, which are under control of the continental cluster group's set of predominant alleles.

...all that were adapted based on their natural environment and has little to do with the intelligence and success of anyone living in modern United States. But that's ok, we'll get to genetic vs environment below.

what do you think of the letter sent to the Wall Street Journal by 50+ experts in the field of cognitive studies, or to the statement by the American Psychological Association?

I find it very contradictory and inconclusive as it applies to 2010 United States.

First they say "racial-ethnic". The two are not the same but let's say that's nitpicking. Even without it, find it to be inconclusive. They say Within-Group Differences "genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals".

Then Between-Group Differences they say, "There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups"+"Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too."

So they are admitting do not know how much of a role genetics plays and how much the environement plays.


Conclusion:

I see a very inconsistent and useless classification system. Becoming more inconsistent as time goes on as well.

For the sake of argument, let's be very generous say that genetics plays 70% and environment plays 30% in determining intelligence and success (in reality there is no proof how much of each actually determines intelligence). Then add in all the "fuzziness" of the groupings. Then add the extra curve ball of increasing mixed people. This leads to a very inconsistent and useless classification system. Certainly far too inconsistent to base any major social agendas and collectionm of any valid data. Serves more to increase "racial" discrimination than minimizing it.

If you are saying it is a valid and useful classification system, then how so? How does it benefit our society?

 

[52ndStreet]

52nd. You again are not even reading my posts. A) I never said there is zero difference, I said "racial" differences are insignificant. B) For about the 3rd time now, you've said "Your theory". Not my theory and sorry to break it to you, but they're already in many peer-reviewed and scientific articles.

Also you have an obvious emotional bias based on your posts in other threads. Sorry but as far as this discussion, I have little patience for people who post things such as, "blacks should marry blacks" or "whites are destroying the black race". Just as much as I have no patience for people who say, "blacks are stupid".

When you can discuss critically, get back to me.

antipartisan-- I would love to discuss these matters with you. I will respond to your questions if you respond to mine.

IanC Thank you and finally, someone who takes the time to read and then answer, rather than kick and scream. Basically I'm siding with the anthropologists' findings and you're not, so we will never change eachother's minds; but I still think it's worth a discussion. Sorry in advance if I missed any of your main points, but here's what I'm saying in a nutshell. I'll try to keep it short&organized:

1. The biological and genetic differences using "racial classification" are insignificant compared to the differences in many other factors that determine intelligence and success, such as environment which include parenting skills, education, ghetto or rich neighborhood, many other factors.

2. The biological differences using "racial classification" are insignificant, yet it is used to justify major social agendas, collect data, and unnecessarily keep "the races" divided.

Now let's say for the sake of argument I'm wrong, and genetic difference among "races" plays a bigger part....

3. "How can there be races if there is a fuzzy border between groups?". This question I've been posing here all along, with nobody answering. Also how do you validate any data based on these "fuzzy groupings"?

4. With the increase in people who are "racially" mixed (some who acknowledge it & some who are mixed but do not acknowledge like most "Blacks" in the US who have approx 20% "white" blood), how much longer do we go about using "racial classification" as valid data? Wouldn't the addition of mixed people increase the "fuzziness" of an already fuzzy grouping system?

skin colour is a characteristic not a cause. so are eye colour and shape, hair colour and shape. all driven by the combinations of inhereited gene alleles that are common to specific continental cluster groups (races). intelligence is a trait that is dominated by the physical characteristics of the brain, which are under control of genes, which are under control of the continental cluster group's set of predominant alleles.

...all that were adapted based on their natural environment and has little to do with the intelligence and success of anyone living in modern United States. But that's ok, we'll get to genetic vs environment below.

what do you think of the letter sent to the Wall Street Journal by 50+ experts in the field of cognitive studies, or to the statement by the American Psychological Association?

I find it very contradictory and inconclusive as it applies to 2010 United States.

First they say "racial-ethnic". The two are not the same but let's say that's nitpicking. Even without it, find it to be inconclusive. They say Within-Group Differences "genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals".

Then Between-Group Differences they say, "There is no definitive answer to why IQ bell curves differ across racial-ethnic groups"+"Most experts believe that environment is important in pushing the bell curves apart, but that genetics could be involved too."

So they are admitting do not know how much of a role genetics plays and how much the environement plays.


Conclusion:

I see a very inconsistent and useless classification system.

For the sake of argument, let's be very generous say that genetics plays 70% and environment plays 30% in determining intelligence and success (in reality there is no proof how much of each actually determines intelligence). Then add in all the "fuzziness" of the groupings. Then add the extra curve ball of increasing mixed people. This leads to a very inconsistent and useless classification system. Certainly far too inconsistent to base any major social agendas and collectionm of any valid data. Serves more to increase "racial" discrimination than minimizing it.

If you are saying it is a valid and useful classification system, then how so? How does it benefit our society?

The racial differences are significant. Something as obvious as "Skin Color" is a significant difference that you can see right away, so I would classify skin color, the shape of the nose, as significant differences between the races. Eye color, is another significant difference between races, although in Jamaica WI., where I am from you
can find Brown skin people with Blue eyes, but it is rare.

I am willing to have scientific discussion with you antipartisan, but your Thesis statement makes no sense. Racial differences exist, and are significant, and my
statement about the majority of blacks marrying blacks, and whites marrying whites
is just from demographic and anthropological research, it is a fact. And there are significant genetic, and racial differences among the races.

You are being brainwashed by Anthropologists trying to make politically correct statements, by way of skewed, or manipulated, and or false data. There statement
must not be taken seriously. When they say there is no such thing as race, or, there is
insignificant differences between the races, these are political statements , they are not based on any true hard scientific facts.! They are stating their opinions at most.

You must realize that the White race was created from a genetic mutation, by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub. Asians, are a mutation, the Indian race is a mutation.
And we have many Mongrel races that were mixed over many millenia.
So there are distinct, significant racial differences among the races.

Your Thesis is absurd antipartisan. Case closed.

P.S. And contrary to what the news media is reporting, mixed race people are not on the increase. The majority of Black men and women marry other Blacks, as is also the case with the majority of White men and women, who tend to marry other whites, so that info is also false. And in many situations of mixing blacks with whites, the Black dominant genes are more pronounced, and the child always appears more Black , than white.!!, and displays black features, ie, big nose,or brown to beige skin, curly hair.The white genes are recessive, and never dominant. These are genetic facts. Brown eyes are dominant over Blue eyes, Black hair is dominant over Blond hair.
And many mixed race people classify themselves as Black, not White, as they have black genetically dominating features.

 

[Silkcity19]

They use that extra bone to sprint from the police , like the gazelle runs from the hunter

 

[antipartisan]

Your thesis is absurd
+
White race was created from a genetic mutation, by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub."
by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub
by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub.
by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub.

facepalm.jpg

and my
statement about the majority of blacks marrying blacks, and whites marrying whites
is just from demographic and anthropological research

Fine. So then as I've asked many times, define "black" and "white" for me please.
A person is in the black race when....
A person is in the white race when....

 

[52ndStreet]

Your thesis is absurd
+
White race was created from a genetic mutation, by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub."
by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub
by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub.
by a Mad Scientist named Jacoub.

facepalm.jpg

and my
statement about the majority of blacks marrying blacks, and whites marrying whites
is just from demographic and anthropological research

Fine. So then as I've asked many times, define "black" and "white" for me please.
A person is in the black race when....
A person is in the white race when....

You need to just read a book called "Message to the Black man" by Elijah Mohammed,
this will give you the info on the scientist named Jacoub.

Black is the Nubian race from Africa, or Nubia , Black to dark Brown melanated people
with Big noses, some also have narrow noses,depending of geographic location.

Whites are people living on the European penninsula. White skin, blond hair brown hair,
Red haired people , with Blue, brown, and grey eyes. A very warlike group of peoples,
who have lives through many Ice ages that have covered the European peninsula over
many millenia.

Was this good enough for you Mr. or Mrs there is no race?.
Read also "The African Origin of Civilization" by Cheikh Anta Diop.
Read booth of these books.

 

[antipartisan]

mixed race people are not on the increase.
+
The majority of Black men and women marry other Blacks, as is also the case with the majority of White men and women, who tend to marry other whites, so that info is also false.

1. Safe to increase in interracial marriage leads to increase in interracial children, so the US census disagrees with you Interracial marriage flourishes in U.S. - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com Me, I'm not sure if I agree with their stats, but certainly you have more reliable statistics you will post for us.

2. According to what you wrote above, if "blacks" and "whites" don't mix, there is no increase of mixed race people. So those are the only two "races"?

3. Also I assume you are going to discount the scientific article that IanC posted that statesm African Americans on average have about 20% "white" blood, right? 20% on average, so just amongst African Americans you have an undocumentable difference in the quantity of "white blood" amongst each of you.

You fail hard. I'll come back when IanC does. Or after you finally post for me the definition of the different "races".

 

[52ndStreet]

mixed race people are not on the increase.
+
The majority of Black men and women marry other Blacks, as is also the case with the majority of White men and women, who tend to marry other whites, so that info is also false.

1. Safe to increase in interracial marriage leads to increase in interracial children, so the US census disagrees with you Interracial marriage flourishes in U.S. - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com Me, I'm not sure if I agree with their stats, but certainly you have more reliable statistics you will post for us.

2. According to what you wrote above, if "blacks" and "whites" don't mix, there is no increase of mixed race people. So those are the only two "races"?

3. Also I assume you are going to discount the scientific article that IanC posted that statesm African Americans on average have about 20% "white" blood, right? 20% on average, so just amongst African Americans you have an undocumentable difference in the quantity of "white blood" amongst each of you.

You fail hard. I'll come back when IanC does. Or after you finally post for me the definition of the different "races".

You are not making any sense. The info on interracial marriages clearly shows no dramatic increase in the frequency of Blacks and whites marrying each other, on the contrary, a recent independent survey found that there is a downturn in interracial marriages between blacks and whites in America.!

And having %20 percent white blood in you means nothing if the black genes are dominant, and will effectively turn off any white genetic material in your body that you might have inherited!!. Do you know anything about genetics. Read those books
that I mentioned.
I need you to post your Thesis statement, is it that there are no Races?What exactly
are you trying to say??.

 

[antipartisan]

Ahhhh...finally....

Black is the Nubian race from Africa, or Nubia , Black to dark Brown melanated people
with Big noses, some also have narrow noses,depending of geographic location.

So you are telling me then, that amongst African Americans in the United States, who average 20% "black" blood, that there are actually very few "blacks" as per your definition. This doesn't even begin to go into all the "Black to dark Brown melanated people" who have no ancestry tracing back to Africa. Such as certain Pacific Islanders as one example.

Failed classification system.

Whites are people living on the European penninsula. White skin, blond hair brown hair,Red haired people , with Blue, brown, and grey eyes. A very warlike group of peoples,who have lives through many Ice ages that have covered the European peninsula overmany millenia.

Awesome. So you are saying that in 2010, all....no I'll make it easier for you....most white people are all purely part of this race you speak of defined as, "White skin, blond hair brown hair,Red haired people , with Blue, brown, and grey eyes. A very warlike group of peoples,who have lives through many Ice ages that have covered the European peninsula overmany millenia."

Great. Because you've just taken all such people with naturally jet black hair out of the "white race".

Failed classification system.

Was this good enough for you Mr. or Mrs there is no race?.

Yes, you proved perfectly that racial classificaion is an inconsistent classification system. Thanks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Funny, I'm still waiting for someone to give me the characteristics of each group of "races" that all of you seem to hold dearly.

"the fact of blue-green does not negate the existence of either blue or green."

OK, since blue and green exists you will of couurse be able to define them for me. As in white race, hispanic race, black race, asian race, etc race.





Irrelevant but for sake of argument, sub species of animals are more clearly defined through features. Humans, not so much. AGAIN, please share those "racial" characteristics for me since you seem to have an easy time differentiating/classifying the various "races".

Here's a good one: if "race does not exist", how do we get affirmative action?

Wow I'm just amazed at the selective reading here. I didn't say "race" does not exist. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. I said it is a made up social phenomenon and has no biological bearing.

Affirmative action is just a biproduct of the social misnomer that is "race" and is a failed policy in and of itself. Taking into account "racial" discrimination doesn't redress discrimination; it only perpetuates it.

The point, which has been proven by your responses, is that the institutional racism is so deeply ingrained; that you refuse to look at the very simple fact that so called "racial differences" are significantly minor compared to the many other differences amongst so called "races". Yet society places more importance on "race".

As I said, a classification system has to have distinct grouping characteristics. None of you are even able to give me a vague one.

Physiological Anthropologists have found a extra muscle in the legs of Blacks, that no other race has. It is said to have developed over millions of years of hunting and gathering
in the African continent. Was this made up?, why didn't white people develop this additional muscle
in their legs?

Is this a "Characteristic unique unto the black race" , that could indicate a racial difference.? Did I make this up?

Those anthropologists you quoted are wrong, they have no hard evidence to maintain their claim.

Your logic is all wrong. There are differences between the races.
This is way Blacks tend to marry other blacks, and whites tend to marry other whites.
Your theory would never be accepted by any scientific journals, or periodicals.

While readin your rants and as entertaining as they are, I have two questions. Didn't you say that mankind began in Africa? And wouldn't that contradict the argument your making now?

 

[52ndStreet]

Funny, I'm still waiting for someone to give me the characteristics of each group of "races" that all of you seem to hold dearly.



OK, since blue and green exists you will of couurse be able to define them for me. As in white race, hispanic race, black race, asian race, etc race.





Irrelevant but for sake of argument, sub species of animals are more clearly defined through features. Humans, not so much. AGAIN, please share those "racial" characteristics for me since you seem to have an easy time differentiating/classifying the various "races".



Wow I'm just amazed at the selective reading here. I didn't say "race" does not exist. Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. I said it is a made up social phenomenon and has no biological bearing.

Affirmative action is just a biproduct of the social misnomer that is "race" and is a failed policy in and of itself. Taking into account "racial" discrimination doesn't redress discrimination; it only perpetuates it.

The point, which has been proven by your responses, is that the institutional racism is so deeply ingrained; that you refuse to look at the very simple fact that so called "racial differences" are significantly minor compared to the many other differences amongst so called "races". Yet society places more importance on "race".

As I said, a classification system has to have distinct grouping characteristics. None of you are even able to give me a vague one.

Physiological Anthropologists have found a extra muscle in the legs of Blacks, that no other race has. It is said to have developed over millions of years of hunting and gathering
in the African continent. Was this made up?, why didn't white people develop this additional muscle
in their legs?

Is this a "Characteristic unique unto the black race" , that could indicate a racial difference.? Did I make this up?

Those anthropologists you quoted are wrong, they have no hard evidence to maintain their claim.

Your logic is all wrong. There are differences between the races.
This is way Blacks tend to marry other blacks, and whites tend to marry other whites.
Your theory would never be accepted by any scientific journals, or periodicals.

While readin your rants and as entertaining as they are, I have two questions. Didn't you say that mankind began in Africa? And wouldn't that contradict the argument your making now?

Humans were created on the African continent,and what is this contradiction
that you are mentioning?.

 

[antipartisan]

And having %20 percent white blood in you means nothing if the black genes are dominant, and will effectively turn off any white genetic material in your body that you might have inherited!!.

Really? So if you have 20% of you pure white mother's genes, 80% of your pure black father's; then all of your white mother's genes are turned off?

Wow I was not aware. That's interesting.


Done with this. Will come back when IanC does and brings up some actual points.

 

[52ndStreet]

done. will come back when IanC does.

How is race an inconsistent classification system, when every application I have filed out
for employment has asked me what my race was.

I am asking you to post your Thesis statement.What is your point. State it clearly, you seem to be hiding your point in incorrect anthropological data.

 

[eots]

I have found that nothing dissolves racist feelings like making sweet love to a beautiful woman of another race..people should do more of it

 

[antipartisan]

How is race an inconsistent classification system, when every application I have filed out for employment has asked me what my race was.

Re-read that statement yourself and just think about what you wrote. If an employer form asks the question, then it makes it a consistent classification system? That's your basis for consistency?

I know many people who purposely do not fill out "race" on their employer forms. Inconsistent. I also put "N/A" for race on all of my college documents and know many people that did. Inconsistent.

I am asking you to post your Thesis statement.What is your point. State it clearly, you seem to be hiding your point in incorrect anthropological data.

I made many points here and wasn't writing any thesis. But I'll post one as maybe keeping it short will help you.

"Racial classification" is an inconsistent classification system for human beings, thus rendering any data collected using such groupings to be inconclusive.

You can start there.

In order to disprove, you will need to show that each person today can be classified into a "racial group" based on distinct characteristics. Which by the way, you tried already but already got disproved.

More quotes for you to ponder:

"There is more genetic variation within races than among them, and racial categories do not capture biological distinctiveness"
Williams, David R., Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, and Rueben C. Warren. "The Concept of Race and Health Status in America." Public Health Reports. 109, no. 1 (January/February 1994): 26-41.

David R. Williams is Professor of Public Health and of African and African American Studies at Harvard. He is the author of more than 150 scholarly papers in scientific journals and edited collections and his research has appeared in leading journals in sociology, psychology, medicine, public health and epidemiology.

So much for your, "Oh so distinct 'racial differences'. I'll take his word over yours

 

[AmericasBrave58]

done. will come back when IanC does.

How is race an inconsistent classification system, when every application I have filed out
for employment has asked me what my race was.

I am asking you to post your Thesis statement.What is your point. State it clearly, you seem to be hiding your point in incorrect anthropological data.

Those people who are mixed black and white are called "Moeloto's I know that there are some folks to are unaware of that. My great niece is a Moeloto.
.

 

[William Joyce]

I have found that nothing dissolves racist feelings like making sweet love to a beautiful woman of another race..people should do more of it

That's what Thomas Jefferson thought!

 

[William Joyce]

OK, since blue and green exists you will of couurse be able to define them for me. As in white race, hispanic race, black race, asian race, etc race.

You're hemorrhaging credibility here. You want me to DEFINE BLUE AND GREEN? See, that's where the race deniers reveal their total refusal to acknowledge common sense. People know what blue and green mean. Nobody runs around saying, "well, there's really no such thing as green, because you've got so many SHADES of it, you see..."

There comes a point when someone's demand for complete precision isn't motivated by a desire to get at the TRUTH, but by a desire to AVOID IT.

Common sense tells us that human beings can generally be divided into racial groups.