When "Science" Is WRONG!

[gusto]

Multiethnic coexistence? It is tempting because there are very shapely girls in every ethnic variety sometimes, but not likely. Even horses kick out the one horse who's color is different from their own.

No they don't. What a dumb thing to say.

But, the OP is a lot dumber.

Yes they do. Naannanaa naanaa.

Well I typed in a couple of the things into my browser. For Homo europaeus, all I saw was writing in what I think was Russian. That aside, being European doesn't necessarily mean you are White. After all, the Huns used to live in Europe.

The same sort of thing came up when I looked for Homo asiaictus. On that point, just because some people live in Asia doesn't necessarily mean they are Oriental.

So if these things existed in English textbooks on zoology or anthropology, Why didn't I see them. Also, for the reasons I gave, neither of those are correct zoological classifications for either species of human. Mine work better. White - Homo aryanus. Oriental - Homo mongolus.

 

[gusto]

Let's start out with the bullshit statement that we are all the same species.
1. "Race" is just a politically correct way of saying "species."
2. In zoology, every type of creature is given its own unique zoological classification. No matter how slight the difference is to a similar kind of creature. The three main zoological classifications is White - Homo aryanus, Oriental - Homo mongolis, Negro - Homo negrosis.
3. In nature, there are slightly different creatures whos home ranges overlap or whos paths cross. Many of whom can interbreed and have viable offspring. But usually don't. They are referred to as different species of whatever creatures. Different kinds of human shouldn't be viewed any differently.

And so it is with humans too.

• Homo sapiens sapiens (the second "sapiens" being used mainly to differentiate us from what has been proposed as another human sub-species, Homo sapiens idaltu.)
  • H. americanus
  • H. africanus
  • H. europaeus
  • H. asiaticus

Were you to have not stood on your own view as being infallible, you'd have found that your binary understanding of race and species is in fact mistaken and incomplete. But you didn't do that. You instead chose to be loud, strong and wrong.

As far as I know, there is no zoological classification for modern humans. So I created some. The ones you list are as far as I know, nonexistent. Except for Homo africanus. That refers to an early humanoid in Africa. To that, you should have brought up Homo neanderthalensis. There is genetic evidence that more modern humans were apparently to interbreed with them. You should go by my zoological classifications. Not Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens sapiens sapiens.

Red:
If you click on the links in my post, and then read the content you'll find there, what you know about the topic would increase.

I looked at a couple of the things. They said nothing. Does Homo europaeus or Homo asiaticus appear in any American text books on either zoology or anthropology?

There's lots of stuff that doesn't appear in textbooks. Did you consider that if those classifications do not appear in textbooks that perhaps given who is the audience for those texts, that level of detail isn't warranted? The taxonomy I shared above exists. It's not widely used because there's no practical benefits for widespread awareness of the naming distinctions they provide. Roses don't smell good because they are called roses.

• Modern Human Variation - An Introduction to An Introduction to Contemporary Human Biological Diversity
• Human Cultural Diversity -- Race
• Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race
• New Goals for the U.S. Human Genome Project: 1998 –2003

Could the answer to your question about what's in textbooks be that you simply didn't take a class where the distinction was within the scope of the course? Did it occur to you that even though there is lots to learn from textbooks, not everything is in every text, or any text, for that matter?

Each of us has an intellectual obligation to ourselves to hunt for additional information. For example, I have a degree in accounting. In earning it (I graduated with honors), I obtained the knowledge of accounting theory and practice that is forms the baseline of what is required for one to be a CPA. There is a hell of a lot that I learned about accounting after I graduated and that isn't in the textbooks. For example, my tax accounting texts said nothing about tax planning or how to structure a captive procurement organization to minimize an asset intensive company's state and local property tax liability. It's that way for nearly all disciplines.

Note:

"Captive procurement" as I've used it above refers to an idea taken from the insurance industry and applied to organizations other than insurance companies. Doing that -- taking concepts from one industry and finding ways to exploit them for the benefit of unrelated industries -- is part of what I do for a living. In my world we call that "finding innovative solutions" to business problems, and it's something that not a lot of folks (in the greater scheme of things) are not good at doing, which is why I do it and that's also why it pays really well.​

Did I consider the audience? I told you (or somebody around here) basically that scientists were just as prone to the herd mentality as everybody else.

 

[320 Years of History]

And so it is with humans too.

• Homo sapiens sapiens (the second "sapiens" being used mainly to differentiate us from what has been proposed as another human sub-species, Homo sapiens idaltu.)
  • H. americanus
  • H. africanus
  • H. europaeus
  • H. asiaticus

Were you to have not stood on your own view as being infallible, you'd have found that your binary understanding of race and species is in fact mistaken and incomplete. But you didn't do that. You instead chose to be loud, strong and wrong.

As far as I know, there is no zoological classification for modern humans. So I created some. The ones you list are as far as I know, nonexistent. Except for Homo africanus. That refers to an early humanoid in Africa. To that, you should have brought up Homo neanderthalensis. There is genetic evidence that more modern humans were apparently to interbreed with them. You should go by my zoological classifications. Not Homo sapiens sapiens sapiens sapiens sapiens.

Red:
If you click on the links in my post, and then read the content you'll find there, what you know about the topic would increase.

I looked at a couple of the things. They said nothing. Does Homo europaeus or Homo asiaticus appear in any American text books on either zoology or anthropology?

There's lots of stuff that doesn't appear in textbooks. Did you consider that if those classifications do not appear in textbooks that perhaps given who is the audience for those texts, that level of detail isn't warranted? The taxonomy I shared above exists. It's not widely used because there's no practical benefits for widespread awareness of the naming distinctions they provide. Roses don't smell good because they are called roses.

• Modern Human Variation - An Introduction to An Introduction to Contemporary Human Biological Diversity
• Human Cultural Diversity -- Race
• Anthropological and Historical Perspectives on the Social Construction of Race
• New Goals for the U.S. Human Genome Project: 1998 –2003

Could the answer to your question about what's in textbooks be that you simply didn't take a class where the distinction was within the scope of the course? Did it occur to you that even though there is lots to learn from textbooks, not everything is in every text, or any text, for that matter?

Each of us has an intellectual obligation to ourselves to hunt for additional information. For example, I have a degree in accounting. In earning it (I graduated with honors), I obtained the knowledge of accounting theory and practice that is forms the baseline of what is required for one to be a CPA. There is a hell of a lot that I learned about accounting after I graduated and that isn't in the textbooks. For example, my tax accounting texts said nothing about tax planning or how to structure a captive procurement organization to minimize an asset intensive company's state and local property tax liability. It's that way for nearly all disciplines.

Note:

"Captive procurement" as I've used it above refers to an idea taken from the insurance industry and applied to organizations other than insurance companies. Doing that -- taking concepts from one industry and finding ways to exploit them for the benefit of unrelated industries -- is part of what I do for a living. In my world we call that "finding innovative solutions" to business problems, and it's something that not a lot of folks (in the greater scheme of things) are not good at doing, which is why I do it and that's also why it pays really well.​

Did I consider the audience? I told you (or somebody around here) basically that scientists were just as prone to the herd mentality as everybody else.

I don't know if it was I to whom you shared that idea. I don't recall that as a recent theme that someone expressed to me. That's not to say it wasn't I, only that I don't recall and I'm not willing to go looking to see if it was I to whom you offered that thought. You've reiterated it here, so I will address it here.

I'm sure that in certain situations "group think" is in play among scientists. The thing to keep in mind is that when it comes to their research, and given how the peer review process works, there's really no incentive for them to acquiescently accept the findings of their peers because doing so impugns the reviewers' reputations. It's also worth noting that among researchers -- scientists, mathematicians, economists and other social scientists, etc. -- the manner in which they express disagreement is via published reviews and by publishing their own work that examines/tests the findings of their peers using similar or identical methodologies.

Doing that and doing it credibly and with comparable rigor and neutrality is in their interest for it boosts their career and advances them toward tenure if they work in an academic research setting, which, frankly, is where most actively publishing researchers do indeed work. "Publish or perish" is real. Scholars, researchers are paid to continually have something of merit to say, and there are only two choices when it comes to what they can have something to talk about: their own ideas or those of a peer. Not everyone all the time has ideas of their own that they well developed and explored enough to talk about them, so they fill the "in between" periods by saying, publishing, "stuff" about other researchers' work and ideas. Say enough that has true gravitas about others' work and it can get one tenure, a bump up to an associate professorship from assistant professor (or a bump from lecturer/adjunct to assistant professor), fewer classes to have to teach, or perhaps a paid role as an expert who's consulted by business, government or news and information networks.

 

[320 Years of History]

I typed in a couple of the things into my browser. For Homo europaeus, all I saw was writing in what I think was Russian.

You may want to try typing "Homo sapiens europaeus." That should yield this if your computer indicates to Google that you are an English speaker. Google, generally only offers foreign language -- foreign to the inquirer -- results when nothing equally or more relevant is available in one's own language.

Perhaps you were confused? The "H." you saw in my earlier post is short for "homo sapiens," not "homo." That's just a standard abbreviation/convention and its accepted meaning in the context of discussing humanity using the formal, species/scientific classification for humans.

 

[gusto]

I typed in a couple of the things into my browser. For Homo europaeus, all I saw was writing in what I think was Russian.

You may want to try typing "Homo sapiens europaeus." That should yield this if your computer indicates to Google that you are an English speaker. Google, generally only offers foreign language -- foreign to the inquirer -- results when nothing equally or more relevant is available in one's own language.

Perhaps you were confused? The "H." you saw in my earlier post is short for "homo sapiens," not "homo." That's just a standard abbreviation/convention and its accepted meaning in the context of discussing humanity using the formal, species/scientific classification for humans.

DAMN!!! Well grind my grits! It would seem that there is a zoological classification for White people. Homo sapiens europaeus. Though as I said, not a very apt one. The same holds true for Homo sapiens asiaticus. But they are what they are. There is even a zoological classification for negroes. Homo sapiens afar. I thought I was on to something with my zoological classifications. Oh well. Congratulations. In this regard, you have learned me. Was there anything else in my thread that you would care to take a stab at?

 

[320 Years of History]

I typed in a couple of the things into my browser. For Homo europaeus, all I saw was writing in what I think was Russian.

You may want to try typing "Homo sapiens europaeus." That should yield this if your computer indicates to Google that you are an English speaker. Google, generally only offers foreign language -- foreign to the inquirer -- results when nothing equally or more relevant is available in one's own language.

Perhaps you were confused? The "H." you saw in my earlier post is short for "homo sapiens," not "homo." That's just a standard abbreviation/convention and its accepted meaning in the context of discussing humanity using the formal, species/scientific classification for humans.

DAMN!!! Well grind my grits! It would seem that there is a zoological classification for White people. Homo sapiens europaeus. Though as I said, not a very apt one. The same holds true for Homo sapiens asiaticus. But they are what they are. There is even a zoological classification for negroes. Homo sapiens afar. I thought I was on to something with my zoological classifications. Oh well. Congratulations. In this regard, you have learned me. Was there anything else in my thread that you would care to take a stab at?

Red:
No, which I say not because I have any sense of the aptness or lack thereof of other remarks made in the thread, but rather because I simply haven't read carefully anything in the thread that wasn't part of yours and my specific conversation.

 

[320 Years of History]

In this regard, you have learned me.

Well, I'm very glad that you've expanded your knowledge base. What I most like to see is that folks, all folks including myself, routinely take the time to question the veracity and soundness of those ideas they hold or hold dear and apply Ronald Reagan's advice, "trust, but verify," as rigorously to their own ideas as they would to those ideas with which at first blush they disagree.

I'm glad to have been helpful to you in the tiny way I have. I also want to acknowledge you and give you kudos for simply owning the mistake and moving on. That's a very mature way to handle such things, and very few on this site do it. The integrity you've shown in your remarks is not missed by. Thank you, and, again, kudos.

 

[anotherlife]

Multiethnic coexistence? It is tempting because there are very shapely girls in every ethnic variety sometimes, but not likely. Even horses kick out the one horse who's color is different from their own.

No they don't. What a dumb thing to say.

But, the OP is a lot dumber.

Yes they do. Naannanaa naanaa.

Well I typed in a couple of the things into my browser. For Homo europaeus, all I saw was writing in what I think was Russian. That aside, being European doesn't necessarily mean you are White. After all, the Huns used to live in Europe.

The same sort of thing came up when I looked for Homo asiaictus. On that point, just because some people live in Asia doesn't necessarily mean they are Oriental.

So if these things existed in English textbooks on zoology or anthropology, Why didn't I see them. Also, for the reasons I gave, neither of those are correct zoological classifications for either species of human. Mine work better. White - Homo aryanus. Oriental - Homo mongolus.

I thought the Huns were white. But yes there is a lot of mixing, like if you compare Russian girls with Polish girls, the Russians tend to have wider cheeks because of mixing with their Mongolian rulers. Also, the Lapps are fully European, still mongoloid. Somehow the unmixed whites are a tiny minority compared to unmixed Africans, unmixed Asians, and unmixed others.

 

[gusto]

Multiethnic coexistence? It is tempting because there are very shapely girls in every ethnic variety sometimes, but not likely. Even horses kick out the one horse who's color is different from their own.

No they don't. What a dumb thing to say.

But, the OP is a lot dumber.

Yes they do. Naannanaa naanaa.

Well I typed in a couple of the things into my browser. For Homo europaeus, all I saw was writing in what I think was Russian. That aside, being European doesn't necessarily mean you are White. After all, the Huns used to live in Europe.

The same sort of thing came up when I looked for Homo asiaictus. On that point, just because some people live in Asia doesn't necessarily mean they are Oriental.

So if these things existed in English textbooks on zoology or anthropology, Why didn't I see them. Also, for the reasons I gave, neither of those are correct zoological classifications for either species of human. Mine work better. White - Homo aryanus. Oriental - Homo mongolus.

I thought the Huns were white. But yes there is a lot of mixing, like if you compare Russian girls with Polish girls, the Russians tend to have wider cheeks because of mixing with their Mongolian rulers. Also, the Lapps are fully European, still mongoloid. Somehow the unmixed whites are a tiny minority compared to unmixed Africans, unmixed Asians, and unmixed others.

The Huns in a sense were no different than the Mongolians. They were a wandering warrior tribe of orientals. I remember hearing once of a officer or diplomat from the Roman empire who met with them. Because they were Oriental, he described them as being exceedingly ugly. Next, you can tell any mixed race Russian a mile off. Also, the Russians themselves of eastern Europe came from a Nordic people called the Rus. That's why so many blond people can be found in that part of the world. For the blonds in that area, any Oriental traits are of course very slight. If they exist to any meaningful degree at all. Despite the centuries that Russia was ruled by the Mongolian "Golden Horde."

 

[LuckyDuck]

A month ago or so, I decided to watch a PBS NOVA documentary about the evolution of humans. Though I have seen such documentaries many times in the past, I thought I would watch to see of there were any recent discoveries that I hadn't heard about. Right off the bat, they showed some guy who made two bullshit statements. So I quit watching. The first utterly bullshit statement he made was that all of the different kinds of human were the same species. The second bullshit statement was purely political. Which was that the destiny of humanity was multiethnic coexistence.

Let's start out with the bullshit statement that we are all the same species.
1. "Race" is just a politically correct way of saying "species."
2. In zoology, every type of creature is given its own unique zoological classification. No matter how slight the difference is to a similar kind of creature. The three main zoological classifications is White - Homo aryanus, Oriental - Homo mongolis, Negro - Homo negrosis.
3. In nature, there are slightly different creatures whos home ranges overlap or whos paths cross. Many of whom can interbreed and have viable offspring. But usually don't. They are referred to as different species of whatever creatures. Different kinds of human shouldn't be viewed any differently.

Let's next go to the bullshit political statement that our future is to be multiethnic.
1. Racism wouldn't even exist unless there was a highly useful and necessary evolutionary reason for it. Only a delusional cultist would be against it.
2. We are wired for racism. It is part of what we and most other creatures are. Only an obscene cult would expect you to go against what you and most other creatures are.
3. In nature, when you see a flock of birds, they are all the same kind of bird. When you see a school of fish, they are the same kind of fish. Etc. times zillions. Only the abomination of some delusional cult would expect a multiethnic society to exist.
4. Probably the biggest crisis facing our planet is overpopulation. Every bad thing that was expected to come from it is happening right now! Such as food shortages and mass migrations of people. But the populations of White people isn't rising. In some places, it may even be going down a little. Yet every single day, there are about 230,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. Also, every day about 21,000 people die from starvation or problems due to lack of food. Separatism is the only sane path to survival.

So NOVA and any "scientists" who think like the one I saw on it need to be dead! The filthy traitorous scum need to be more than dead! They need to see their families impaled before their eyes. Then impaled themselves. Their bodies should be preserved in their impaled state and left on display for future generations.

Clearly, your two digit IQ isn't helping you.