James R.:
I did do quite well there, didn't I? This was another example of you attempting to critique a source which you haven't actually read, as I recall. Totally irrelevant to the current discussion, of course.
Actually, I have read "Guns, Germs, and Steel". I have it on my book shelf, in fact, right now.
I have never owned this forum, or claimed to do so.
Since when can I decide policy here? Answer: I can make policy to the extent that the administrators permit me to do so and agree to support my actions. I will be able to do that for as long as I maintain the confidence of the administrators/owners of the site. I value their opinions, and I will bow to their wishes.
Ergo, you cannot establish new rules of "no segregated clubs allowed".
And only segregation by race, or by everything?
You're the one claiming the 156 IQ. Work it out, Einstein.
I don't see anything that was racist in the least. Love of one's own race without disparaging another is hardly a racist stance.
As Athelwulf has already pointed out, people are free to choose to join a chess club if they wish to play chess. On the other hand, a black person cannot choose to be white. You seek to discriminate on the basis of an innate and superficial characteristic.
Superficial? Is "being human" superficial? Another innate characteristic which seems to have a great deal of importance!
As you know, of course, this whole strand of your "argument" is a red herring. You weren't banned for attempting to start a club.
Yes, I was banned because you accused me of something which I did not do: Foment racial hatred.
Did I or did I not ever say anything in the White Sciforums Members' Club that claimed any race was inferior to whites? Or that the white race was superior? Or any other claim? If so, present it quoted verbatim. I'll concede and be on my way.
I await for the:
White Sciforums Members' Clubs
Prince James says:
White people are superior to black people
But I am afraid you won't be able to provide such,
as I did not say anything to that tune.
You conveniently ignore all non-racist explanations for that, all the while proclaiming loudly that you are not racist.
The scientists behind said book is that the genetic evidence is available. Note: Not "racist" evidence, but genetic evidence.
You know, science not politics.
Give me a stupid tolerant person rather than an intelligent bigotted one, any day.
You must be quite in love with yourself.
The next time you produce this sort of language in reference to another member of sciforums, you will be banned for at least 7 days.
Last I checked, the infraction for abusive language was 5 points, not 7 days.
Am I to suppose that it is Sciforums policy to give some people greater punishment than others for the same crime?
How about calling me a "racist bigot"?
Are you going to address such abusive language directed to me?
It seems you don't understand what these words are telling you. Given your recent record, I doubt you've read the entire article you extracted these words from. I'd urge you to do so. However, I suspect you might require some scientific training to understand what you're reading. I suggest you attempt to procure some before tackling the article in full. Should you not wish to do so, I suggest you stick to what you're good at (presumably something in philosophy) and give up on messing around with things you don't understand.
Actually, I have taken several classes in college-level science. Although I have no degree, I believe I have a relative good establishment in several studies.
And I also read the full article: It affirms the reality of genetic populations corresponding to colloquial races.
“ It has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups.... Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained humankind as a single species.... Any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective. ”
OF course we're one species. Species, however, can be aligned into races.
I do not claim that blacks, Orientals, whites, Semites, et cetera, are all different species. Only different races.
These different races are proven by the very same genetic patterns that correspond to the drifting patterns of human migrations from an initial African origin, of which the article speaks of, and supports on genetic foundations.
Further proof can be found in crime-scene forensic genetics, bone analyses, phenotype analyses, and "racial medicine".
If race were not a biological fact, forensic genetics could not differentiate a white man from a black man, bone analyses could not tell a Mesoamerican from an Oriental, phenotypes would not exist, and racial medicine would work equally as effectively across the races.
Sadly for your viewpoint, the converse of the above is true.
