IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Re. brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Oct 9 23:56:00 EST 2002

JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote: 
>>"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>>>Niggers look like niggers,
>>No they don't.
>>>For thousands of years before the jews got into this country in record
>>>numbers, this made common sense, to everyone, which is why the Holy Bible,
>>>the US Constitution, and all state laws made miscegenation with muds a
>>Show us where it says anything like this in the Constitution.  For
>>that matter,show us the law in any state where "miscegenation with
>>muds" is a crime.  Make sure that you show us that they have defined
>>the word "muds" in accord with your definition.
>Richard offered proof that according to "Law" there is such a thing
>as "race" which is what I was pointing out with my example of
>filling out forms which had the "race____" spot on them.

But people aren't required to follow any particular law in filling out
those spots.

Yes laws have defined race, generally in contradictory ways, which is
why it was noted that Jews were considered "white" and were granted
citizenship whereas in other contexts people try to say that they are
NOT white.  In most states, a black who was able to "pass" and who did
not acknowledge their heritage, was to all intents and purposes
"white", and no doubt many of his/her descendants would not even know
that they had a black ancestor.  I suspect that if one goes back far
enough EVERY European-ancestry person has at least one black in their
ancestry.  Just as almost every European has Charlemagne as an
ancestor, any offspring of a white and a black from back then (when
blacks were NOT considered a different "race" except in the sense that
Germans and Franks and Goths were considered different races.  All the
European races intermarried, and some of them would have intermarried
with Africans.

>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
>races and now here you are trying to deceptively sidestep the issue.

Because in fact there is none.  The laws attempt to do so based on
parentage, but parentage is often lied about, and science isn't
generally used to check.  Furthermore, parentage presumes that one can
determine the race of the parent, which is the same problem
recursively.  There is no way to determine the race of someone even
legally without assuming the race of someone else has already been

>Do you not understand how the rule of law works in America? It has
>to do with normal folks electing leaders, not clones bowing to the
>whims of wizards.

None of which has ANYTHING to do with science, which couldn't care
less how the law works in America.  Science is not "politically
correct", and it is international.

>But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt knowing that it just may
>very well be possible that you do not understand  the fundamentals
>involved here.

I fully understand them.  You don't seem to.

> What we have here is one group (you liberals of the
>culture club) adhering to an almost gnostic ideology which you call

If you don't like science, tough.  The question was a scientific
definition of "race" - as you admitted above:
>You guys are arguing that there is no scientific basis for defining
>races ...

> and using it to oppose what I (and John for the most part)
>are basically presenting which is a Biblical principle called LAW.

Law is hardly a "Biblical principle", and American law has little to
do with the Bible.

>This almost gnostic manner represents wizzardry.  I could get into a
>word study here and show how sorcery and drugs are the result of
>such things but I won't at the moment.

Of course most modern drugs are the result of science, and in
particular chemistry.  Chemistry in turn descends from alchemy, which
might indeed have been considered a form of wizardry in medieval
times.  But we don't anymore, and I daresay that at some point you
have taken some medication that was devised by chemistry.  And the
only difference between medications and "drugs" is whether they have
been labeled "illegal" or not, and under what circumstances (doctors
give morphine, otherwise illegal, for severe pain).

>Everyone who has any sense
>knows how pills and medicine are presented to the populace at large
>in a mystical "cure for everything" almost gnostic way which, in my
>view approaches national worship for glazed-eyed seculars.

And you of course eschew all of modern medicine, and instead rely on
leeches and other natural remedies.  Or are you a good "Christian
Scientist" praying at the altar of Eddy for your health?

>Even atheists are unaware that
>they do actually worship "beings" they call scientists and have
>attributed semi-supernatural powers to them.

Hmm.  I wonder what supernatural powers a scientist has.  Maybe the
ability to THINK independently?

>Men are sinners according to the LAW of God and need God's help in
>solving the equation, not the help of maddened wizards.

If I am worried about some equation involving sin, I turn to God.  If
on the other hand it is a differential equation, the Bible won't help
in the least, and I haven't a prayer to solve it without knowing some

Science doesn't claim to deal with anything regarding "sin" which is
not subject to scientific analysis.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net