Your prediction about outcome of Super Tuesday

See, this is not fair the way you say it. While I agree that there is no genetic disposition to race because there is no fine line seperating the races. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as race. Saying that there is no such thing as race is like saying there is no such thing as color. After all, where does red ends and orange begins?It is one of those things that I'd have to say I know it when I see it. Not being able to tell this girl's race has nothing to do with the fact that there is such a thing as race. It's like mixing a bunch of colors together and then say that there is no such thing as different colors because nobody could identify the various colors that got mixed together. Sure, I can't tell if that little girl is what you said she is. But I can definitely tell that she's not African just like I can tell that there's no blue in a mixture of red and black after seeing it. It's I know it when I see it kinda thing.

Taz, I think you miss the point. Off course it is easy to tell the color of a person. But does that constitute race? For instance, a black person can have african origins, but might also have australian origin. these two groups are not closely related. So we need more then color to define race.But once we start adding other characteristics things get only more unclear. should we use average height? there are some pretty tall people in nother europe and in sub-sahaara africa too. There some short people in Africa and in Asia too. So, height does not cohoborate the tentative definition for races that was achieved with skin color. You might thinkmay be if we add even more characteristics, things we become clear. But the poin is that they don't. The only honest conclusion seems to be that there's no such thing as true race in the human populationEdited by fallacycop, : No reason given.

Point to me where I said color is the only thing we can use to define race? Yes, in my last post I used color as an analogy. Somehow, you missed the true meaning of my analogy about trying to find the fine line between red and orange and instead thought I said color is the one true thing we could use to define race. Which is why I said race is one of those things that I would have to say I know it when I see it. There is no fine line for me to tell the difference between some Africans and some Australians, but I can definitely tell the difference between a Caucasian and, say, an East Asian. And I have never claimed that there is such a thing as a "true race". All I'm saying is that while there is no such thing as "true race", that doesn't necessarily mean the concept of race is purely an illusion. There are no fine lines to seperate the "groups", if you will, but in a lot of instances we can definitely tell who's what. Like I said, I know it when I see it.Added by edit.As a preemptive strike against an imminent OT pointer, I'd like to point out that we are discussing about race, which has everything to do with this topic. The OP is talking about the race for the white house. Obviously, we are talking about the same thing Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

If Hillary gets the nomination, my guess is Wesley Clark for VP.Maybe not, though. He may just get a cabinet position.

quote:

---

just like I can tell that there's no blue in a mixture of red and black after seeing it.

---

But there might be blue in it, even though you can't see it."Red" as a color can be in the "cool" (purple) family or the "warm" (orange) family.So, is there such a thing as a "pure" race? If not, what does race really mean?

Taz writes:

quote:

---

Saying that there is no such thing as race is like saying there is no such thing as color. After all, where does red ends and orange begins?

---

But color is arbitrary. There is no reason why we have distinct color terms for "red" and "orange" and, in fact, there are some languages that don't make that distinction.In English, for example, we have a separate term for "pink" to distinguish it from "red" and yet we don't have a term for the similar lightening of "blue." It doesn't mean we can't talk about it...it's just that we don't see it as a distinct color from "blue." In order to describe it, we add descriptive terms to "blue" ("baby," "sky," "pale," etc.) or start comparing it to other objects that have a distinctive hue ("turquoise," "aqua," "topaz," etc.)"Race" is a culturally defined concept just as color is. Now, the morphological traits of the human body are a bit more discrete than color, it is the aggregate collection that we tend to define as "race" and there is no particular reason why certain traits necessarily go together. They simply happen to have collected together due to reproductive isolation among various populations.But, I do agree with you that it is ludicrous not to notice that these traits have collected. A bit of doublethink going on, I know, but it's important to note that what we call "race" is a socially constructed distinction, not a genetic one. And by recognizing that, we hopefully understand that it's just a collection of morphology and doesn't mean anything beyond that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I wasn't saying race does not exist, I was pointing out the fallibility
of skepticfaith's statement that a 1 year old could tell one race from another. I used my daughter's picture due to the fact that many people have thought she was everything from pure blooded indian to a hispanic white, black & indian mix.Edited by bluescat48, : typos

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Is there such a thing as "pure" color? If not, what does color really mean?

In philosophy, there is a concept called The Principle of Charity. When someone says something as idiotic as what skepticfaith said in this regard, applying the Principle of Charity makes me think that perhaps he meant something else not so idiotic but he couldn't communicate his thought well enough. In other words, I gave him the benefit of a doubt.I could be wrong in this, but the way I see skepticfaith's statement is that he wanted to say that classifying race can't be done with genetic analysis or other such methods that are so objective. His remark of "any 1 year old coudl tell..." could also mean that he was trying to say that at least to some people race is a real thing and that at least in some cases determining the race of a person with the "I know it when I see it" litmus test is fairly easy. If this is what he wanted to say, then I agree with him. While I can't determine the race or combination of races of every person on the planet, I can certainly tell the difference between a caucasian and someone from east Asia like a Korean. Giving examples of cases where the race or combination of races is not so easy to determine via I-know-it-when-I-see-it method doesn't disprove this fact.So, again, the suggestion by some people that race doesn't exist is rediculous. It might be a subjective thing, but it's anything but an illusion.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Is there such a thing as "pure" color?

---

No.

quote:

---

If not, what does color really mean?

---

Our names for colors are arbitrary.

I deem that this topic has long run past its useful intent and has turned into a rather "misc. debris" topic.I'm not going to make any moderation efforts here, including closing the topic down. I, however, would suggest that anyone having a real theme of substance/significance might want to start a new topic rather than having it buried in the "compost heap".Or something like that.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

Is there such a thing as "pure" color?

​

No.

​

If not, what does color really mean?

​

Our names for colors are arbitrary.

---

I rest my case.

I few years back Canada was running a deficit and going further into debt. It became a big issue here for all parties and we now have been running surplus budgets and paying down the debt for years. As a result our dollar has gone from the mid 60's up to around par (it peaked at 1.10) with the US dollar.I hardly ever seem to hear anything by any of the candidates about the huge deficit that is being run by the US govt., let alone the mountain of debt including foreign debt that is accumulating.(Except Ron Paul and he isn't going anywhere.) There is the usual talk about cutting spending but nobody is suggesting that they will bring in a balanced budget, unless I'm missing something which is always possible.Doesn't anybody think this is a problem? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See red box.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

McCain seems to be doing pretty well for someone that's not exactly well liked by so many conservatives. Anyone have a guess as to why this is?

Two possibilities:(1) Rank and file Republicans are as tired of whiney conservatives as the rest of America;(2) Republicans are afraid that the electorate won't vote for a fuckwit three times in a row.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies