Racist?

A quick google shows the following definitions for racism:

--the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
--discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
--Racism is the belief that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. ...
--The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes; The belief that one race is superior to all others; Prejudice or discrimination based upon race
--racist - based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
--racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
--racist - discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion

Sorry, that last one, discrimination on the basis of religion is false. As far as I know there is no 100% correlation between any race and any specific religion.I saw in a previous post in this thread that sexism is now considered racism. That's nonsense too!The broader the use of the term "racism" gets the less meaningful it is. If it applies to everything it applies to nothing.My guess is that calling someone "a racist" is such a good political weapon that it's being overused.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I had a class in Human Races in graduate school.And it is even more complex than you point out. Most racial classifications rely on visible traits, but there are the invisible traits as well. Blood types, fingerprint patterns, and a ton of other traits can also be used to classify people.And when you go back into antiquity, you run into another problem: most of the visible traits are environmentally linked. Given a few tens of thousands of years skin color, nasal shape, hair form and a lot of other traits will change to better match the environment. That is why you have dark skinned people of short stature in at least three areas of the world--they share a similar environment even though they are not closely related.Then to make it even more fun, you can track descent groups while ignoring the visible traits. When you play with genetics you can see who really is related to who, and when the various divisions occurred.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Blood types did have regular worldwide clinal distributions prior to about AD 1500.Here is an article, with distribution maps, on the subject: Article

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Almost all classical racial traits are found to have clinal distributions. However, the traits don't all have the same distributions.Most of those classic traits correlate more with climate and environment.Example: Pygmies and Negritos share a lot of classical traits but are only distantly related. They do, however, share quite similar environments.American Indians are somewhat different because of the smaller time frame, but already populations in South American rain forests are evolving to resemble groups in similar environments in other parts of the world.These classic traits are generally "plastic" and are independent of descent groups.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

"Muslims" is (or are) not a race!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So many? Out of many hundreds of thousands of people in Tea Parties, how many have been identified as "racists?"And is it possible that the other side sent some of those as plants?Anecdotal evidence is worth what you paid for it. Unfortunately, much of modern journalism is worth even less./rant

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your opinion.Others might consider NBC to be the worst.Liberals just can't seem to tolerate any opinions that differ from theirs. They are now trying to legislate their opinions into law by branding anything else hate speech. So much for the first amendment.A more intolerant bunch I have rarely seen./poke

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Something that might be worth considering:There is a vast difference between race and culture. Many characteristics attributed to race are actually cultural.This is why the statistics of blacks vs. homicides worldwide do not correlate.If you used cultural traits vs. homicides you might have better success in finding correlations.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This depends on whose racial classification you use. There are lumpers and splitters.Some use three categories--Caucasian, African, and Mongoloid. Those are the traditional groups.Others, such as Stanley Garn, see dozens of groups.Both are correct, as it is all arbitrary anyway.Given that, Semitic peoples either are, or are not, Caucasian.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Depends on how many classifications you have.If you have only the traditional three, Caucasian extends from Norway to North Africa to India, and through much of Eurasia.At least that's what I learned in a Human Races class in graduate school a few decades back.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Skin color is a pretty poor criterion to base anything on as it correlates primarily with distance from the equator.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why are lefties and other socialists so upset with the Tea Party?Haven't the lefties and socialists had their own advocacy organizations for years?What's the problem, can't they take the competition?(And did anyone realize that "Taxed Enough Already" is the origin of the name?)(And did anyone realize that this website is for creation/evolution debates, not politics? Want to stick to those subjects?)

Could you provide some evidence for the "unemployed" claim directed at Tea Party members vs. the usual leftie/socialist protesters? Any real numbers available?And by the way, the charge of "racist" has just about been used up as a pejorative. You can only cry "wolf" so often before it fades into meaninglessness. The lefties/socialists have succeeded in taking a once-legitimate charge and running it into the ground.And are you saying it is always "racist" to disagree with the direction medical care is headed under the current administration? Or are you just obfuscating?And why can't we keep this site limited to the creation/evolution issues? Why do leftists/socialists keep trying to push their flawed agenda in places it wasn't designed for?

If this website is degenerating into a leftist/socialist playground it isn't on my shoulders.Those who disagree with that agenda have been silent so long that lefties and socialists think they own the playing field. They aren't used to any disagreement. That is changing, and it's about time.Better get used to it.But then we could always stick to creation/evolution here. That would be nice too, eh?

I respond to your leftist threads and posts and it's my fault?Sorry, the days when those on the left can expect to post their opinions, as if they were mainstream, and to go unopposed are over.