It’s interesting that a religious metaphor was chosen, because the attitude I’m picking up has a sort-of religious flavor to it.
That attitude seems to be “I’m right, and I’m so convinced that I’m right, that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with me. Therefore there is no need for discussion.”
I’ve looked at a bunch of threads on issues that have been mentioned here, and I perceive significant weaknesses, on both sides of the argument. Weaknesses that merit discussion, IMHO.
:sigh:
Um, yea. The hanging elephant is disgusting.
I know what you mean. I think JillGat probably didn’t want to have to deal with it yet again. These types of threads can get really ugly. I personally enjoy the view. I’m of the opinion that every time one of these “race-genetics” threads come around somebody learns something new.
It looks like it was combat fatigue on Jill’s part.
P.S. One side of this arguement is right. Fatigued, some times condescending and sometimes smug-- but right.
Nope. And I’m seeing a new sig…
Well, if you have something new to lend to the debate, and you can make some specific points about how you think that race is a valid concept and could be put to use in a scientific fashion, go ahead and start a GD thread about it. I’ll respond, and I promise not to post links to the hundreds of old threads about it.
The science behind my side of the argument is quite sound. At least that is what all the scientists think.
I think this is really the weak point in your argument - your perspective. You are a geneticist, and your interest is in the science of genetics, so you persist in looking at everything from this perspective. But something can be true without being a valid scientific concept, and to people whose interest is not purely scientific, the truth (or untruth) of this can be relevant.
I maintain that the Texas lawmen that popularized the phrase “Hanged by the neck until dead,” did so because they were the subliterate progenitors of George W. Bush. Proper English grammar does not permit such a mangling. My illustrious ancestor, Dr. Samuel Mudd, (to whom the wonderful idiomatic phrase “His name is Mudd” refers,) narrowly avoided such a fate. As the Boston Post, (a civilized East-coast publication,) noted at the time, some of his co-accused were not so fortunate:
So nyah. 
Infectious Lass and tarnik, yes, the fate of Mary the elephant is an atrocity. I heard about it about 20 years ago, and still, the phrase “hung like an elephant” conjures up that photograph, rather than Long Dong Silver. Did you read about the other methods of execution that were decided against because they were “too cruel”? Jesus, what kind of people were they? (Probably the same sort of people that divvied-up the pachyderm’s flesh after the Funeral Procession scene in Allesandro Jadorowsky’s wonderful film, Sante Sangria…) My apologies if it bummed you out, Infectious Lass– People can be cruel.
Anthracite, I guess I should be thankful that your sig makes no mention of my “relatively small and hard-to-stimulate penis.” 
“Bart! They said you was hung!”
“And they was right.”
-Blazing Saddles
::looks down:: Umm…nope.
I dated a Hispanic guy for about a year. Trust me, it’s not envy. Sorry bud.
Err…
Not to get into the whole “meaning of truth” debate, which I avoid like the plague, but in my book if something (based on observable phenomena) is “true” then it should be able to be described scientifically. If something can be true without being a scientifically valid concept, please give me an example (NOT religion, Allah knows I don’t want to go there).
The scientific method and statistics are our only tools in telling if a collection of data support a specific hypothesis. I don’t need to tell you all of the wonderful things the scientific method has allowed us to learn over the past 500 years. Personally, I see no other ways around it.
We are presented with a hypothesis here: The concept of race is useful in some way for discerning characteristics between people. Phrasing it as a hypothesis allows us to test it experimentally once you settle on a definition of “race.” Testing the hypothesis has been done in a number of ways. All of the valid ways show no significant differences between the “races” unless the term “race” is very narrowly defined to something close to a true genetic population.
We don’t have far to go: race.
You and Collounsbury et al have expounded at length on the fact that race is not a meaningful genetic concept - at least as far as the “classic races” go. And that there is nothing close to genetic cohesiveness among the so-called races etc. And that a given “Caucasian” may be more similar, genetically, to many “Negroids” than he is to other “Caucasians”. I do not challenge any of this.
Now, there are a group of people in the US known as Blacks, or African-Americans. And there is another group known as “Whites”. These groups, again, have no genetic coherence. But it is a fact that a given black person is more likely to be afflicted with sickle cell anemia than is a given white person. Now I have been given to understand in previous debates that this is not directly correlated with skin color - rather it has to do with the prevalence of malaria in the country of origin - the “malaria line”. And that there are sub-populations of blacks who are not prone to SSA, while there are sub-populations of Whites who are (I seem to recall Col giving Lebanese as an example of this).
So here’s the point: if I were dwelling on the truth or falsehood of the statement “Blacks in the US are more subsceptable to SSA than are Whites in the US” it is a true statement. (Possible ramification: guy goes to the doctor with symptoms that are something like those of SSA - the doctor should be quicker to bring up SSA if he is dealing with a black guy.) However, this does not imply that - from the standpoint of genetics - the Black/White racial breakdown is meaningful for purposes of understanding SSA - this would be misleading, as mentioned.
But then it must be borne in mind is that the fact that the concept is not meaningful scientifically does not mean that statement is false. The truth continues to be that the group known as Blacks is more prone to SSA than the group known as Whites. To use the lack of validity of the Black/White genetic breakdown as a wayt of denying this truth would be wrong. It is my position that by insisting on keeping the focus purely on the genetic/scientific aspects of the racial issue, you and your allies are partially obscuring this issue.
[celestina wondering what the hell she’s doing posting to this damn thread when she damn well knows better.]
Collounsbury, where are you when I need for you to set folks straight so I won’t have to get my hands in this shit? 
And you’ve left poor edwino alone here too. Now I’m all upset and cranky over this confusing thread, and I’d much rather be clowning around in other threads.
Rant #1:
I must say that I am CONFUSED. This thread started out because someone was wondering why another thread asking about black/white female genitalia size was closed. Then I think it digressed into some kind of discussion about the size of black/white male genitalia. Of course, I’m really wondering why folks are so hung up on the size of black female and male genitalia. Why historically was black folks’ sexual organs the focus of so much voyeuristic scrutiny on the part of whites, and why do they continue to be? I’ve grown up around all kinds of folks, but the only people I’ve heard consistently speculating about genitalia size is white folks. That doesn’t mean that other ethnic groups don’t talk about genital size. It just means I haven’t witnessed it. I’m a black female, and I’m happy to say that I have fully functional genitalia. Yea for me! Still, I could give a rat’s ass about how big or small my stuff or anyone else’s stuff is. FOLKS NEED TO DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION TO THEIR OWN STUFF AND LEARN HOW TO USE THAT PROPERLY, rather than looking down other folks pants and up they dresses. Believe me, you’ll have more fun if you follow that little bit of advice. 
As annoyed as I get at folks speculatin’ about black folks’ stuff, what I find infinitely more interesting and indeed sad, is the fact that folks are all up in black people’s cracks. Perhaps it’s this voyeuristic phenomena: what motivates non-black folks’ fascination with black folks’ genital size; how does this fascination with black folks’ genitalia manifest itself (i.e. lynching rituals where black male and I imagine female genitalia and other body parts were claimed as prizes; socially sanctioned rape of black women during and after slavery; historically enforced black prostitution in places like New Orleans) that needs to be the focus of some serious psychological inquiry. If these psychological studies have been done, then for the love of heaven, will someone please direct the folks who are driven to quantify genitalia size to them so they can understand what their curiosity stems from and maybe will shut the hell up about race and genital size already. If more pyschological studies on the aforementioned voyeuristic phenomenon need to be done–and I imagine they do–then someone needs to get out there and do them.
Rant #2
IzzyR, um, just what the hell are you trying to say? Now if I understand you correctly, and I’m not sure I do, you’re arguing that Black and White as racial concepts should be considered as valid OUTSIDE the confines of the science that has shown that Black and White as genetic markers are invalid. Well, OUTSIDE of science, the only way that I can think that Black and White as categories of identification are valid is as cultural identity markers. This leaves me wondering: So? And? Your point is? Of course, looking at Black and White as cultural identity markers can get really tricky when you consider that there are at least as many definitions for Black and White as there are folks who self-identify under these categories. Again, I’m left wondering: So? And? Your point is? If cultural anthropologists, sociologists, or John Doe on the street corner wants to take the time to try to record some features of Black and White culture, fine. But, really, what is there to debate here? Please help me understand where you’re coming from.
Hey celestina, in answer to rant#1, I think I touched on this earlier. It isn’t a racial thing. It’s a guy dick-measuring thing. They all do it. They seem to enjoy it. They like to brandish these numbers. They like comparing and contrasting. Black guys do it to, they just don’t publish scientific papers about it.
It’s like a cockfight, only they don’t use spurs and both cocks usually get to live.
As for rant#2-- Once people start discussing “the meaning of truth” my brain ceases to function.
Yeah, but Biggirl, that’s just it. I don’t understand the dick measuring thing, and why it’s moved over into trying to measure women’s clits? Both the dick/clit measuring phenomena and the truth of race outside of science stuff is making my head hurt. Why are folks so hung up on quantifying this stuff? [sigh] Maybe I should just leave this thread alone and go play somewhere else.
Well, it’s marginally more entertaining than talking about baseball. Not much admittedly. Personally, I’d much rather hijack the conversation into a debate about whether or not you should say “Why are folks so hanged up on quantifying this stuff?” And besides, for me it dredged up memories of dear Mona, who was possessed of a shockingly protuberant clitoris. She also had perfectly straight pubic hair, which, at the time I didn’t even think was odd, since I was so distracted by her enormous clitty. (I was 17 at the time, and if I’d known that I’d never see anything like it again, I’d have asked for pictures.)
Well, Larry Mudd, “hung up” means to be preoccupied with, and that’s why I used it. Of course, if I used “hanged,” then that could render another even more interesting and perhaps telling interpretation. Some folks who are getting all wrapped up in this really are cutting off oxygen to their brains with this illogical voyeuristic noose. As far as the discussion of race and genital size being entertaining, well, all I have to say is that all talk and no action makes folks dull, and I’d rather not spend time around folks who talk too damn much. Mouths can and should be put to much better use. YMMV
Sometimes mental masturbation really is “choking the chicken.”
I’d like to help you, but frankly I’m unsure of what you are saying, and don’t see much connection between your rant and anything I’ve said. If you could be more specific as to what I’ve said that you object to, and what that objection is, I’ll try to explain further.
I’m hesitant to add anything, since IzzyR made such a coherent and persuasive post.
But a similar thought occurred to me – that even if we accept as 100% true everything that edwino said about race & genetics, it does not necessarily follow that the original question is “absurd.”
As far as the “who the fuck cares” question goes, personally I’m interested in discussing the truth or falsehood of various ideas and legends that are floating around.