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

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

Jd JDay123 at BellSouth.net
Wed Oct 16 10:22:48 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote: 

>
>"Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
>news:3da5a8e1.9381193 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
>> 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
>> >determined.
>>
>> 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
>> servitude."
>>
>> 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
>> ground.
>>
>> There are good scientists, and there are wizards.  I think we need
>> Christians to vote for leaders which know the difference.
>>
>> Jd
>>
>
>Well said, Jd.
>
>We really must accept that when jews (and "liberals" and other muds [read:
>mongrels]) claim that women are more intelligent than men, that they
>actually believe it:  because in their communities, it seems to be the case.
>You have to REALLY be STUPID to believe that government and science are
>incapable of defining races which were EASILY defined, documented, and
>proven by Israelites thosands of years ago, and repeated by our Christian
>Founding Forefathers centuries ago.
>
>From the perspective of a mud or "liberal" or jew like lojbab, it probably
>is impossible to even comprehend the concept of race, but Thomas Jefferson
>had no trouble identifying who the Indians were and KILLING them before they
>killed any more Whites.
>
>But it took more than mere STUPIDITY to get to this miserable point:  it
>took some serious intentional dumbing down in our "public schools", and
>constant, chronic dumbing down in the "newsmedia", to REALLY make them this
>STUPID.
>
>Is it even possible to get STUPIDER than this?  I don't think so.
>
>John Knight

I've come to realize that there's a certain type of ignorance which
can be noting less than pure evil.  (which is not to say that it's
ugly)

Jd





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

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