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

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

Jd JDay123 at BellSouth.com
Thu Oct 10 13:27:58 EST 2002

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote: 

>>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:

>>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

The fact that YOU say "that there is none" (scientific basis) means
that YOU can't argue race scientifically just as you can't argue
religion scientifically if you say "there is no proof" . Therefore
science is basically irrelevant to the point of being useless with
reguards to 2 of the most important issues of today if you hold to
your view. I challenge your view.

With respect to laws being based on parentage, well, that's not
true. One of the first Laws (if not the very first) addressing the
race question was the 15th Amendment to the Constitution which uses
both terms "race" and "color" with respect to voting rights. It was
ratified Feb. 3, 1870.

Here it is:

Amendment 15, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
any State on account of race, color or previous condition of

Section 2 shows that Congress is empowered to create laws with
respect to this Amendment. 

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

"Race" is associated with "color" in the U.S. Constitution, Bob.

In fact, bills from the 107th Congress show that "race" is used in
conjuction with terms like "nationality" and "minorities" and they
show that lawmakers use findings of science in their efforts to pass
laws dealing with "race".

Here are some examples....

[H.RES.398.EH] Whereas fragile X is the most common inherited cause
of mental retardation, affecting people of every race, income level,
and nationality; </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:18:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>

[H.CON.RES.388.ENR] Whereas in 2000, the Surgeon General of the
Public Health Service announced as a goal the elimination by 2010 of
health disparities experienced by racial and ethnic minorities in
health... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:27:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>

[S.RES.151.IS] Expressing the sense of the Senate that the World
Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and
Related Intolerance presents a unique opportunity to address
global... </cgi-bin/query/D?c107:37:./temp/~c1075VbmUF::>

>>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.

My findings above prove you wrong Bob.  That is unless Scientists
are even more ignorant than I thought and have no clue whatsoever
than Law makers are looking over their shoulder and even funding
their research.  Not only that, but now you're telling me that this
ignorance has reached global proportions.

Lets face it Bob, you're blowing smoke unless you truly can't
distinguish the difference between your a$$ and a hole in the

There are good scientists, and there are wizards.  I think we need
Christians to vote for leaders which know the difference.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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