"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:k3lbqus9gijogr727a8lq87t552ago3gv5 at 4ax.com...
>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> 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".
>> There's a difference. We cannot argue religion on the basis of
> science because by definition religion deals with things that are
> supernatural and not natural.
>> Now if you want us to believe that the difference between races is
> supernatural in nature, then indeed science has nothing to say. But
> if there is a supposedly natural basis for race, then science should
> be able to detect it. But of course it cannot.
The Holy Bible IS "science", by every definition of the word, and it DOES
*scientifically* describe the differences between the races, in GREAT
It is an extreme minority "opinion" that science can't determine race. Even
the STUPID jews in Israel use *science* to determine if jews are jewish
enough to qualify for the "law of return". DNA studies PROVE that the
genetic differences between niggers and Asians are just about as big as the
genetic differences between niggers and apes.
This, even in your "liberal" lexicon, is called "science".
> >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.
>> Science is irrelevant to religion. Whether religion is an important
> issue depends on your point of view.
>> Science is quite relevant to race - it says that there are no races
> other than the human race. And race would not be an issue at all, if
> racists like you did not make it an issue. It certainly is not one of
> the most important issues of today.
If it's not THE most important issue of the day, you jews and "liberals"
wouldn't go postal every time a "White Man" stood up for his RACE, would
You can't even WAIT to insult a WHITE MAN, can you? You IDIOT "liberals"
and jews and feminazis have used every word and trick in the book to attempt
to CURTAIL this simple discussion about RACE, haven't you?
Why would you do that if it's so unimportant?
You are a LIAR.
>> >I challenge your view.
>> Whoopie for you.
Jd understated his position. Not only does he "challenge your view"--he
knows that most normal people think you "liberals" and jews and feminazis
are complete and total IDIOTS.
And from the polls that you yourself have read and cited, you KNOW this
> >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.
>> Actually it isn't. If race was based on color, then they would not
> have needed to use both words, only one of them.
We know you are incapable of understanding why they used both words, so why
do you keep trying to prove how STUPID you "liberals" are?
> >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".
>> Where is science used to pass laws dealing with race in the following?
> That a law mentions "race" does not mean anything about how race is
> determined. And as I've said, in practice, race is generally based on
> self-identification - you are whatever race you say you are.
If a nigger has 1/16th nigger ancestry and says he's "White", he's a LIAR,
because the law will not permit him to simply claim that he's "White".
Many state laws prohibit niggers with 1/64th nigger ancestry from simply
proclaiming that they're "White".
BUT, more important than that, it's impossible in the age of the internet
for a nigger to hide his nigger ancestry from the public, which means that
he cannot continue to spread his miscegenation without lots of people being
aware of it. And this gives White parents the opportunity to preserve their
>> >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.
>> No. They prove nothing except that you can find the word "race" in
> various laws.
He didn't merely prove you "wrong"--he proved you're STUPID.