Chat Forum
It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:57 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 365 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?


Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles


Most animals were not either.


The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21033
c69 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?


Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles


Most animals were not either.

Apart from all domesticated animals


Of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?


Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.



No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.


So what was your Sickle Cell point about?



You know sickle cell only affects people from a particular heritage don't you ? That isn't racist , it's not like profiling at airport security, there's actually scientific and genetic reasons for some things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?


Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles



What ? Biologists have only and do only categorise animals becaus animals have "specific roles"

Crikey what leap of new word understanding are you going to use now!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?


Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.



No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.


So what was your Sickle Cell point about?



You know sickle cell only affects people from a particular heritage don't you ? That isn't racist , it's not like profiling at airport security, there's actually scientific and genetic reasons for some things.


It's hereditary, yes I am aware. Are you saying that white people can't have sickle cell disease?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5165
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?


Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles


Most animals were not either.


The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system


No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?


Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles


Most animals were not either.


The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system



Homo sapien. Which is a great ape, and recently we have discovered there's now 7 great ape species rather than 6.

Some biologists obviously do still look at these things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?


Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles


Most animals were not either.


The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system


No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).


Yes, we use that system. All humans are the same species, homo sapiens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5165
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles

Most animals were not either.

The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system

No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).

Yes, we use that system. All humans are the same species, homo sapiens.


Obvious when you say it. :blush:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34538
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?


Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.



No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.


Where did that come from? I was querying your question about "racially African".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:

So what was your Sickle Cell point about?



You know sickle cell only affects people from a particular heritage don't you ? That isn't racist , it's not like profiling at airport security, there's actually scientific and genetic reasons for some things.[/quote]

It's hereditary, yes I am aware. Are you saying that white people can't have sickle cell disease?[/quote]


What "white people" , Northern European origins then the answer is no they cannot as the mutation isn't present in the population and never has been.

It can occur in people from Southern Europe (very rare now) due to earlier eradication of malaria. These this are simple for you to look up yourselve if you're " genuinly curious".

My point regarding sickle cell is there isn't and shouldn't be funds available for myself (being Northern European ) to be tested for sickle cell.

Quite a few diseases and conditions that have genetic components are bias towards certain peoples from certain places or even certain genetic backgrounds. This is actually science n stuff, like the gender things though we now social sciences are allowed to super seed actual science.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 8423
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Why do we not categorise humans using the same systems as we do for other animals? Is it purely because we are the ones doing the categorisations and think we are different?


Humans weren't deliberately bred to fit into specific roles


Most animals were not either.


The ones we refer to using "breed" names, which I took to be what Edinburgh was referring to, were. If that's not what he meant then the answer is even simpler- we do use the same system


No I wasn't, I was talking about species, genus, family etc. Do we use that system? If so how? (and yes I do appreciate we could use it with different labels, it is just not leaping out at me that we do).


Homo sapiens.

One of my lecturers at Auckland U was Vince Sarich who, together with New Zealand biologist Alan Wilson, applied the molecular clock to human evolution.

Quote:
In their seminal paper in 1967 in Science, Sarich and Wilson estimated the divergence time of humans and apes as four to five million years ago,[2] at a time when standard interpretations of the fossil record gave this divergence as at least 10 to as much as 30 million years. Subsequent fossil discoveries, notably Lucy, and reinterpretation of older fossil materials, notably Ramapithecus, showed the younger estimates to be correct and validated the albumin method. Application of the molecular clock principle revolutionized the study of molecular evolution.[citation needed]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Sarich

Sarich thought that 'races' we're the beginnings if human speciation. Interesting guy.


Last edited by Santa on Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
JM2K6 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Calculus wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Isn't Africa the most genetically diverse continent?


Yes, but a lot of people like bimbo still think phenotyic difference correrates highly with genetic differences.



No I don't, and nothing I've said demonstrates such a belief. I tend to think of these disgraceful accusations of my thinking as deflection from the accusers beliefs and thoughts.

Lots of disgraceful people use a tactic like this as it covers their own behaviours and guilt.


Where did that come from? I was querying your question about "racially African".



I was replying to calculus, I sorry your quoted above the post I replied too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32580
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:

So what was your Sickle Cell point about?



You know sickle cell only affects people from a particular heritage don't you ? That isn't racist , it's not like profiling at airport security, there's actually scientific and genetic reasons for some things.


It's hereditary, yes I am aware. Are you saying that white people can't have sickle cell disease?[/quote]


What "white people" , Northern European origins then the answer is no they cannot as the mutation isn't present in the population and never has been.

It can occur in people from Southern Europe (very rare now) due to earlier eradication of malaria. These this are simple for you to look up yourselve if you're " genuinly curious".

My point regarding sickle cell is there isn't and shouldn't be funds available for myself (being Northern European ) to be tested for sickle cell.

Quite a few diseases and conditions that have genetic components are bias towards certain peoples from certain places or even certain genetic backgrounds. This is actually science n stuff, like the gender things though we now social sciences are allowed to super seed actual science.[/quote]

I think it's generous to suggest that some of the nonsence peddled on this stuff should even be afforded the descriptor 'social sciences'. Most of this drivel belongs more in the Critical Theory category and should be folded up in the Humanities department. Anthropology should be returned to those people hanging around in the Olduvai Gorge with small brushes and bones, and beefed up with a few real scientists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.



Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.



Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?


I don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.



Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?


I don't.


So only some "white" people can get sickle cell traits ?

It's almost like there's issues with heritage and genetics that can be grouped ..... Now what shall we call these groups.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21033
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.


Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.



Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?


I don't.


So only some "white" people can get sickle cell traits ?

It's almost like there's issues with heritage and genetics that can be grouped ..... Now what shall we call these groups.


I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.


Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?


No. Why would I?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Quote:
I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.


Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?


No. Why would I?



Because of their bigoted practices ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32580
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.



Sorry can you explain how you think a couple with only German heritage can have a child with sickle trait ?


I don't.


So only some "white" people can get sickle cell traits ?

It's almost like there's issues with heritage and genetics that can be grouped ..... Now what shall we call these groups.


I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32580
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?


I'd love to know what the Chinese think of this declaration by Chuckles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21033
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
I know I can look it up for myself, and as a matter of fact I did. There is nothing stopping a white person from getting sickle-cell disease (unless you subscribe to the "one-drop rule" anyway), all they need is a heritage which has included a carrier and the lucky/unlucky combination of alleles in each preceding generation to give them that specific haemoglobin mutation.

And that point is entirely fair, but my point is that "race" is such a poor proxy for genetic markers of this stuff that we are genuinely better off not using it.


Will you be petitioning the NHS to offer Sickle Cell tests to all prospective parents, as is currently the case with thalassaemia?


No. Why would I?



Because of their bigoted practices ...


Or possibly because the NHS has good scientific reasons for not doing so?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights


Last edited by bimboman on Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?


What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21033
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?


What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.


It is certainly imprecise when one thinks Muslims and Scientologists are distinct races


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights



ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?


What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.


It is certainly imprecise when one thinks Muslims and Scientologists are distinct races


And that "black" is a meaningful category


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights



ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....



No it doesn't

http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/1/6/Race ... kplace.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21779
Location: Middle East
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights



ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
I guess you could start with ACAS:

http://m.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1849

They use "race" .....


Or the governemnt


https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights



ACAS includes "religion" in its definition of "race", so....



No it doesn't

http://m.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/1/6/Race ... kplace.pdf


Did you, uh, read that document before linking it bimbo?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 54146
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?


What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027740?s ... b_contents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You really need to read these things before posting the link at me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21033
The ACAS document does not include religion as a definition of race. It includes two distinct groups Sikhs, and Jews. Not Muslims, Christians, or Scientologists


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32580
Chuckles1188 wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Quote:
I don't know but we definitely don't and aren't going to call them "races"


Because you've decided that's the case? Shall we inform all those places and people and systems and research etc that does use the term "race" that its been decided they're not allowed to any more ?


What research that you don't dismiss out of hand as a waste of time uses the term "race"? Biology definitely doesn't.

The reason is that "race" is an already-existing term with no scientific basis behind it. Technical terminology is precise because it has to be, "race" is a hugely non-precise term.


It is certainly imprecise when one thinks Muslims and Scientologists are distinct races


And that "black" is a meaningful category


Census categorisations for America:

https://www.census.gov/topics/populatio ... about.html

I suspect that 'black' was a useful category when it was practically synonomous with descedents of American slaves. Now that it includes significant numbers of people from different African-origin ethnicities and cultures, then it is less useful. Eg. Caribbean and South America blacks, new elite immgrants from west africa, Nilotic types such as Obama, and people from Ethipia, Somalia and Eritrea. All very different people from the original slave descendents and facing different challenges.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40613
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
"Sikh" of course being a term which does not in any way denote belonging to a religion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21033
Chuckles1188 wrote:
"Sikh" of course being a term which does not in any way denote belonging to a religion


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 365 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Altazuma, Bert, BlueThunder, dargotronV.1, Farva, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], gtb, happyhooker, jamesfreeman, Jay Cee Gee, Leffe, Murdoch, Pat the Ex Mat, pigaaaa, Wignu and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group