I’ve engaged in it, and this isn’t the first time. I just continue to dismiss your views.
‘Meet the new theory, same as the old theory.’ Yes, I am sure new data will produce new theories. I’m also sure that people with preconceived notions will try to use some of that data to prove what they already know in their hearts. That’s one of those things people do. (You said a couple of times in the previous thread that all the racial equality side could do was poke holes in the data supporting your side, as if the data wasn’t particularly important because the conclusion is so obvious.)
I think nature has a role in some phenotypes, yes. Racism pops up when we start discussing the inherent qualities of human beings as divided into races - groups that don’t have a firm genetic definition or any particularly solid basis for existence, by the way. Their definitions are cultural and not genetic, and they are usually based on appearance alone.
Where would you rate the Maori, by the way? You don’t seem to think much of indigenous groups on the whole.
See, I have the opposite view. I feel like the Christian moral agenda is more easily fought back than the encroaching tax burden, which is why my fiscal attitudes tend more heavily influence my decisions of who to vote for. I admit, though, this may well be a function of the area I live, where the combined taxes tend to be quite high, and liberalism is the dominant social view.
Dude, give it up. She worded it incorrectly and then fixed it. Ease up and get over it. And before you assume, I am one of the last people to blow sunshine up Cat Whisperer’s ass.
