Peace, you are a worthless piece of shit, and a liar to boot.

The BBQ Pit
161

Okay, this has turned into a real car wreck. Peace is depending on “classified” data now? Hoo boy.

Me too Tom, it’s become clear that no matter what we post (even if I wasted my precious free time on demonstrating the HLA distributions are not coherent to races) he’ll continue to troll.

(Aside to the Mods, I’m struggling not to call him a troll per se, but I have to note some clearly troll like behaviours, including deceptive claims about this background --English not his 2nd language? ha–)

I have to guess that he’s in this for the thrills as it were and could care less about the data.

So, a question to the readers: does anyone besides Peace not follow the argument which Tom, I and others have presented? Are there any actual questions out there?

(Oh by the way the Chamla cites were to provide substantiation to my earlier mention of her works in connection with the non-existance of racial groups in the Saharan in the early Holocene forward – critical to the idea that there were ever definate groups as Tom has explained.)

[Edited by Lynn Bodoni on 12-15-2000 at 01:03 PM]

162

Any questions? No. The argument has been won and won again. All that has become clear in the last couple of pages is that peace is falling to umm bits. I don’t know whether he just can’t accept it (the earth really looks like it revolves around the sun) is too stupid to understand or is just trolling.

Okay, one question Collounsbury. Shouldn’t your sig be “I wish I were a cheesemaker”? ::d&r::

163

http://www.brazilpednews.org.br/mar2000/ao0002.htm
HLA ANTIGENS AND HAPLOTYPES IN IgA-DEFICIENT BRAZILIAN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS
Tom, yesterday you asked me about the names of the races (I have no desire to “trap” anyone). It meant to me that the races existed, that you just did not know their names. Today you canceled the races again. As I understand, because some individuals cannot be pigeonholed into any of them. I hope that you understand that it is so because of “mixed” marriages, the number of which sharply increased in the last ~5,000 years, especially lately. The change was due to cultural trends, i.e., increased travel. It takes place only in human populations, the animal kingdom remains largely unchanged.
I showed to you that the perceived mixing can be explained by the fact that most features (“traits”) are controlled by more than one pair of genes. The existence of dominant and recessive genes, genes with different penetrance, and “linked” genes further adds to diversity. More genes (and other genetic markers) exist in the population than is necessary to code for any particular feature. That provides for endless diversity, for the fact that even you and your brother can share 50% of the genes and be very different. You are unable to understand (you, I suspect, do not want to) that people do not have to have totally different set of markers to make them different. They may share most of their markers, and still be different. Based on the shared portion, they can be grouped in “races” or “subraces”.
You refuted all the data and prefer to stick to familiar cultural notions of race and ethnicity. I can use you example of Desmond Tutu (DT) and Carol Wojtyla (CW) to show your fallacy, but I am sure that you would not want to listen. DT and CW both belong to the species Homo sapiens. 97% of their markers are the same (and always will be the same, in their progeny). Their appearance differ, because the genes, coding for some features, are different. DT has more genes coding for black curly hair, and CW has more genes, coding for light straight hair (or less genes of DT’s type, it’s non-essential now; a few genes in them are different). If DT and CW “mix”, they will have more similar genes and, will, therefore, look more like each other.
When I learned about the genes, many years ago, I said to myself: “Wow! That’s neat! That could explain a lot!”. You, on the other hand, say: “It looks reasonable, but it stops in Khartoum. In 5,000 B.C.E. it worked, but not any more.” Biology, unlike culture, does not stop in 5,000 B.C.E in Khartoum.
To me it looks like you are afraid to admit that biological races exist. Doing so will change something for you. Yesterday you took the suggested walk outside, looked at the people and decided that races exist. Even asked me for their names (as if you had not known and assured me it was not a trap). Today you decided that the races do not exist (because somebody in Khartoum was of mixed race?). I cannot deal with it.
In the future, I suggest that you examine the facts, make a conclusion and stick to it, at least for a while. Or refute it, whatever. If you change your mind, go back and review old posts.
Jb, You have it backwards: I can follow the idea, but the idea changed. Yesterday Tom said that the races existed and asked for them by name. If he knew that that did not exist (as you seem to believe, too), and as he said, it was not a trick question, why to ask for their name? So, today they disappeared again. Reprise wanted to know about hair roots and DNA, yesterday, Today she does not. At least, this is understandable: she might’ve learned about it elsewhere. But you are right again: I cannot follow ephemeral ideas. At least, ColB is consistent: he accepts half of the genetic theory and does not change his faith. Many more people here know the truth but do not want to look PI. So, they keep quiet. I am the only fool here. You call me other names. As you wish.

Peace

164

Sorry, peace, you are now being willfully obtuse and I have no desire to play the game.

I never said that races exist. (Go read what I posted, not what you would like to see.)

I never said

You are putting words in my mouth that are clearly contrary to what I have posted.

People cannot be pigeonholed into races because the “mixing” has never stopped in over a million years. Where did you drag up this weird idea that mixing increased sharply 5,000 years ago? What movement of populations do you believe suddenly began that had not always gone on? The whole point of my remarks (and Collounsbury’s actual scientific data) is that there has always been enough mixing to prevent the development of a biological race. (And his data showing “mixing” went back beyond 20,000 years, not a mere 5,000, without any sign that the “mixing” was tapering off among the oldest examples.)

It was interseting that you speculated on what I “choose” to understand or misunderstand, however, since you have provided no evidence that stands up against the least scrutiny and you continue to insist that there is a reality that you cannot even describe (much less describe coherently), I think I will consign that speculation to the same container as the rest of your strange remarks.

165

Tom, I am very sorry. I did not realize that the races did not exist. I did not realized that all people, all over the world looked the same. I did not realized that all the differences in forms and colors resulted from cosmetic doctors work. The ancient frescos must be some kind of illusion. The differences in height can be easily explained as illusory, too.
Qo: Where did you drag up this weird idea that mixing increased sharply 5,000 years ago
You suggested that it started in 1492. I just moved it back, because I thought that travel intensified about that time. Apparently, it was my delusion. Biological races never developed, as Collounsbury showed, because people always moved around. The existence of different types of people is purely accidental.

The above does not make much sense to me. I believe that I live in a different mental world (or ward). But our believes may be different. If I do not know something (e.g.,about historic events), I may ask you. If you do not know about races, or biology, it is OK.

BTW, everything I said about races, holds true for animals. Do your political believes cover animals as well or are they exempt?

Peace

166

Hmm, an interesting question. I shall have to entertain the thought. Perhaps this has been the impediment all along.

167

One final note: Why are you dragging political beliefs into this, peace? I have not expressed any idea that races “should” not exist, only that the scientific evidence argues against it.

Up until two or three years ago, I would have accepted that races were a biological reality. My concept of them would have been close to what you have expressed in terms of genetic variation. In the ensuing two or three years, I have read more and more literature along the lines that Collounsbury has provided and I have discovered that the scientists have been unable to find the collection of gene associations that I would have expected (and that you keep insisting exist while providing no examples of their existence).

In that same period, my political beliefs regarding race, humanity, or any related subjects have not changed in any way. The reason that I have persisted in asking for your evidence is that I do not have a philosophical problem with race. If it actually existed, I would have no problem acknowledging it. Since you insisted that it was real, I wondered where your suporting data could be found.

Since you continue to throw out citations that do not support your thesis, I will continue to follow the scientific word on the subject.

This set of comments

is both stupid and offensive. I have never claimed that everyone looked the same. I have pointed out that the genetic evidence indicates that the variations in color and form that clearly do appear throughout humanity (giving rise to the faulty, culturally determined, notion of race) are simply extended points along a spectrum or continuum that do not allow for discrete categories or “races.” The fact that you have never even addressed the issue of a continuum with any evidence to refute it suggests that you are willfully ignoring the subject. To now falsely claim that I have denied the reality of the appearances is clearly dishonest.

O-Ka-a-a-ay! I indicate a specific point where we know that Europeans used specific technology to suddenly explode across the face of the globe, frequently dragging various populations of non-Europeans in their wake. You respond by arbitrarily increasing the elapsed time by an order of magnitude because you “thought that travel intensified about that time”? This does not even make sense. You now appear to be simply throwing out statements to increase your post count. While not quite as offensive as your other red herring, it certainly indicates that you are not serious regarding participation in the discussion.

168

By the way, Peace, do you think it escapes any of us that every single one of your “points” above have already been addressed in a substantive manner? You, without any doubt, are a worthless piece of shit and a fucking asshole to boot.

169

**Qo: One final note: Why are you dragging political beliefs into this, peace? I have not expressed any idea that races “should” not exist, only that the scientific evidence argues against it. **
Because I cannot understand why else you deny the obvious.

Qo: Up until two or three years ago, I would have accepted that races were a biological reality. My concept of them would have been close to what you have expressed in terms of genetic variation. In the ensuing two or three years, I have read more and more literature along the lines that Collounsbury has provided and I have discovered that the scientists have been unable to find the collection of gene associations that I would have expected (and that you keep insisting exist while providing no examples of their existence).
You do not have to know anything about anything. Just look around. If “the scientists have been unable to find” the explanations for the diurnal cycles would you stopped to believe that day and night alternate?

** Qo: If it actually existed, I would have no problem acknowledging it. Since you insisted that it was real, I wondered where your supporting data could be found. **
I found the supporting data in the streets. Sorry if my data collection techniques offended you.

Qo: I did not realized that all people, all over the world looked the same. I did not realized that all the differences in forms and colors resulted from cosmetic doctors work. is both stupid and offensive.
Of course it is stupid. Thank you for the complement, I succeeded in making it stupid. What is offensive? You say that there are no races. I just repeated after you.

** I have never claimed that everyone looked the same. I have pointed out that the genetic evidence indicates that the variations in color and form that clearly do appear throughout humanity (giving rise to the faulty, culturally determined, notion of race) are simply extended points along a spectrum or continuum that do not allow for discrete categories or “races.”**
If you do not claim “that everyone looked the same”, you do claim, by default, that “everyone looked different”. Then you have to say, “everyone is uniquely different”. Or you have to say; “everyone can be grouped according to the major features (traits)”. It’s one or the other?
Which one?……………………………………….(please fill)

Q:The fact that you have never even addressed the issue of a continuum with any evidence to refute it suggests that you are willfully ignoring the subject.
There is nothing to address. The is no continuum. Perhaps, there was, when you talked about the skin color. But biological markers are discreet. Wake up!

**Qo: To now falsely claim that I have denied the reality of the appearances is clearly dishonest. **
If you did not deny it, are you saying that everybody is different? Or are you saying “different, but in a manner which does not allow to compartmentalize (to pigeonhole?)”Which one?..……………………………………(please fill)
Qo: This does not even make sense. You now appear to be simply throwing out statements to increase your post count. While not quite as offensive as your other red herring, it certainly indicates that you are not serious regarding participation in the discussion.

The fact that I respond is the indication that I am serious. I do not know how my “post count” matters, but it has nothing to do with the topic. I concede to you that my “5,000 years” was arbitrary, although I do not know why Colounsbury’s “20,000years” was not.
In any case, I know that I am right. Not only because easily identifiable groups of people leave all over, but because Colounsbury (and many others) already ran out of arguments and switched to cursing. You still speak English, but your arguments do not hold water. So, please, fill up the blanks above or join the crowd.

Peace

170

I submit this pretty much sums up the whole thing

Hmm, could it be because it is based on actual research and, oh my god, actual data!!! Why there even cites for everyone to check and verify. I do make mistakes you know.

Oh yes, that’s part of the problem.

We’ve gone over this over and over again.

Folks, any votes, trolling or idiot? I have to say the former.

Oh I have lots of arguments but since you failed to address any single one of them, I switched to swearing. More entertaining and less labor than wasting cites, data, numbers --you’re bad with those we know-- on you.

Don’t bother Tom. I think if we watch how this has gone that this is clearly JDT style behaviour. He’s trolling for reactions. If there’s any observers out there who would honestly want Tom or I or Gaspode or anyone else to answer actual questions, I’m sure we will. But I think we should stop feeding this creature from under a bridge.

171

I’d prefer to stay out of the pit. Sometimes it’s funny but other times it degenerates. However, Peace, your premise that if everyone does not look the same means that everyone looks different defies logic. You obviously have had no course in basic logic. Because everyone may not look the same does not lead to the premise that everyone looks different. “Everyone does not look the same” means “All the people do not look the same.” That does not preclude some of the people looking the same.

172

Just a quick question regarding the race discussion, because I don’t think that races can be objectively, biologically defined, but they can be culturally defined, can’t they? When I read a newspaper article that says something like “Majority of American blacks voted for Gore”, I have a pretty good idea of what they mean.

173

Is it troll-feeding if people just drop by to call him a FUCKNUT?

I certainly hope not.

Ah, yes, peace, with your Super-Duper Ultra Top Secret HLA Marker X-Ray Specs. Or are you implying that your only expertise in this (or any) subject is a dog-eared garbage-strewn copy of “Origin of the Species” you found in a gutter?

Do you know why you can’t tell the difference between your arbitrary 5,000 years and Collounsbury’s 20,000 years? It is because you are uneducated. That’s right, an uneducated dolt. This (I suspect) is the same reason that you can’t tell your ass from your head.

Whoops. I really had intended to just write FUCKNUT and be done with it. My bad.
jb
p.s.- FUCKNUTTER!!

174

Oh of course! No doubt about it. Race is absolutely defined by culture: in America having dark skin, curly hair and perhaps a touch of any of the constellation of features we call African makes you black (unless you can sucessfully claim something else, such as hispanic).

Don’t let Peace’s distortions of my and Tom’s arguments throw you. We’re talking about the lack of underlying biological unity of groups whose surface features, very grossly, appear similar. And vice versa.

Prime example I gave was comparing stereotypical African look with the negritos of South Asia, who have the same morphology exactely. In the USA they’re all black. And why not? The error comes in trying to pretend there’s an underlying genetic unity.

I think we covered this ground pretty well in the Eugenics thread, which is linked somewhere in this mess.

175

OK I have read the thread (now 4 pages! jeez) and I will bless you all with my opinion. Of course, it is mostly rehashed and repeated from above.

Yes, there are some markers which can separate populations (not races, that is not a good scientific or genetic term). There are numerous problems with this, even if the populations are small, inbred, and isolated (like my Ashkenazi Jewish one).

These markers do not say anything about race. One may consider himself African American with less than 1/2 of his geneology originating from Africa. The Nazis defined Jews (I’m not gonna debate Jewish race versus religion here) as 1/8 of your geneology Jewish.

Race is somewhat subjective. There are no clear limits. Without clear limits, we cannot establish boundaries of a population, therefore we cannot establish statistics on population numbers.

Let’s take a clear example : A white Ashkenazi Jewish woman who happens to be a carrier for Tay-Sachs, which is highly enriched in her population (1/20) marries a Nigerian man who happens to have sickle trait (a carrier for sickle-cell disease). As you know, this is highly prevalent in Africans (1/6).

1/4 of their children will be carriers of Tay-Sachs and of sickle trait. Their children can be both Ashkenazi Jews and of African descent. And their genetic markers would be evenly split. You could not genetically, socially, physically, or morphologically characterize the race of the children.

This is the tip of the iceberg.

This is a train wreck. Nothing to see here. Just move along and get on with your lives.

176

I’m going to regret this, I just know it…

Peace: The term race or subspecies when applied to non-humans can sometimes ( MAYBE ) have some objective value. I live in the Bay Area. Locally there lives a little species salamander that goes by the scientific Ensatina eschscholtzii. It doesn’t really have a common name - People usually refer to them as Ensatinas. In the Bay Area, said salamander has an eye that is jet black for the upper two thirds and sparkly golden in the lower third. If you go North a little ways you find Ensatina salamanders that have eyes that are uniformally jet black. Otherwise the animals are identical - not just in appearance, but in habitat and habit as well. Now for a scientist it can make a certain amount of sense ( although it is sometimes hotly argued if it does or not - some say it is an unnecessary category and we should just stick with the term ‘population’ - but lets with stay with it for now ) to refer to these two separate populations as different races ( or in this case subspecies ) just as a convenient shorthand. You can then use them as defining points to explore rates genetic differentiation and its relation to geologic activity, etc. .

But to the organism it makes not a bit of difference. It is purely an arbitrary shorthand for something of no biological significance to the animal itself. I can go to a point ( and I have done so ) where the ranges of these two “sub-species” overlap and find individuals that have all-black eyes, but with a tiny bit of gold flecking. In other words the populations intergrade. And in fact there is no “overlap” - it’s the same organism throughout this range. It’s just that this is a very non-vagile species. And that being the case, trivial differences like the different frequencies of the genes that express eye color have been preserved in local populations.

Race then, is a term of no real biological significance at all, except to researchers who substitute it as a word for ‘population’. It has held on the scientific community for the same reason it has held on ( in relation to humans ) among the populace at large - it is convenient.

But scientists when referring to non-humans use the word in a very limited way, i.e. as I explained it above. But when it is applied to humansit is not used that way. Instead it is a blunderbuss, loaded down with centuries of racial prejudice and malign intent, and referring to enormous populations that noprofessional Taxonomist or Systematist would ever dream of referring to as a ‘race’. The terms Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid have no biological meaning whatsoever. They aren’t even useful as scientific shorthand because they are such HUGE, VAGILE, and ceaselessly INTERGRADED categories that there is no way to tease them apart in any objective manner. And that’s what all of the scientific evidence that have been quoted to you has proven.

So yes, races, as the term is applied to humans, do not exist in a scientific context.

Even if you wanted to say, “…Well let’s agree it is biologically meaningless, but continue to use it as a shorthand for groups of people with different skin colors…”, it still wouldn’t work. Because it’s a continuum. And how would you determine wear the exact dividing line is between black and white? Or black, white, and brown? Or whatever? It can’t be done ( and I would argue that it would be socially and humanistically unconscionable to attempt to do so - But that’s neither here nor there at the moment ). And frankly the word carries too much baggage to be resurrected and used in the same way that taxonomists use it to refer to, say, local populations of Amanita muscaria, which lack most of the psychodelic compounds found in them back East or in Europe.

No one is going to argue there aren’t genetically distinct ( in very small and trivial ways ) populations of humans. But there are no “races” amongst Homo sapiens.

177

Goddamnit, I really should learn to preview these things - I obviously can’t type worth a shit :frowning: .

178

…And having now finally read through this entire tortured thread ( yes, I know it was a cardinal sin not to have done so in the first place - mea culpa ), I see it truly was a waste of time to bother posting. My points have already been made far better than I ever could and to absolutely no effect :frowning: . Ah, well. Good intentions and all that.

  • Tamerlane
179

People, you could at least chime in with a hearty “FUCKNUT”

jb

180

FUCKWIT