A Dream

[John]

Are you saying that you wish the political forums were still here?

Kat (my friend),
Please give me time to answer that.

I'm thinking that Yes Kat, that wish was within what I posted; However that wish is not a request.

It might be easy for folks (such as I) to make requests; However, we are not the ones who have to do the work required of running your site.
As you know, I have been thankful to you for setting up this site - from day one.
It seems to me that when we were asked to leave (for one radical discussion) the other site (the nest ) years ago - you provided us with this safe spot to land.

No one else was there - and you were.  Thank you!

I'm thinking that No One has room to bitch about you for this site.  You have provided Lots of room, for Lots of Folks, to grow and spread their wings.
You are surely the mother of a new revolution!

Thanks "Mom"!    Hey wait; that seems too strange to say . . .
Thanks, Sister!
Thanks Kat!

[David]

Curious, Nhfree started by some be asked to leave (i assume fsp forum) another forum?  What was the discussion about that prompted them to ask you to leave.  I was aware of none of this.  I assumed that the bad blood was due to the fsp virtually disowning us every time we did something. 
Not a big deal, but i am curious as to the 'birth' of nhfree.   

[Kat Kanning]

They didn't want us planning the first UN flag burn there.

[John Edward Mercier]

Can I ask why not?
Even if a group was opposed to say 'secession' of NH from the US? How can anyone be opposed to leaving the UN?

[sandm000]

This:

Actually a lot more than just the Klan, in the US, thinks you're black if you are 1/8 black. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule
In reality the definition of a race is a fluid thing. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29#Modern_race_debate

Invalidates this:

Again we are arguing about the definition of the word race, racist and racism.  Races do exist.  People who descriminate based on race can be called a racist, but to deny the existance of the races is absurd.  Sickle Cell anemia occurs most often in Africans, Hemophilia occurs in Europeans, and Tay-Sachs Disease in Ashkenazi Jews.  Asians and Africans are primarily Lactose intolerant as adults.  Northern Europeans have increased incidence of skin cancer due to low melanin production.  Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians lack alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme that breaks down alcohol, making them crazy for "fire water".
Physical attributes which seperate groups of people.  You may not call them races, perhaps you'd rather call them clades?  The point is the differences do exist, and if you can name the subset by it's characteristics or afflictions, that is in fact a seperate group.

If these groups are biologically-separate and identifiable as such, then there can be no cultural "fluidity" in the definition.

Brown-eyed people are very likely to have brown-eyed children.  Does that make "those with brown eyes" a "race"?

The fluidity in the definition is because of sociologists having difficulty in pinning down exactly what it means, especially in a day and age where more people than ever are marrying interracially.  100 years ago it was not difficult to point to a person and say "white person" or "black person" or mixtures such as "mulatto" "quadroon" "Harufu" Etc etc.

If you wanted to define a race by one single physical trait, and ignore any of the social and cultural characteristics that go with the myriad other physical traits.   The error you are making here is equating my list of traits to the definition of race.  You've mixed the order up of cause and effect.  I've claimed these races have these characteristics, not that they are defined exclusively by them.

I take it you have no knowledge of science?  All science is theories.  Gravity is a theory.  It's a well-established one, but it is a theory, not a fact.

Let's not get into a bunch of ad hominems here.  You said gravity was an OPINION that is a quote from you.
I said it was a fact.  Theory =/= opinion.  You have confused the two definitions for theory.  Please, if you are going to call gravity an opinion, provide some contemporary data opining how gravity is not a fact.

I can't give you an education in biological anthropology in a forum post.  I suppose for a very rough starting-point, you could read up on Dunbar's number.

Thanks for the reference.  Dunbar doesn't claim that one considers people outside of their closest 150 friends to be "not people". 

Can you point to the difference between a cultural group and a racial group?

Cultural groups are sociological.  If I were adopted, and knew nothing about the culture of my ancestors, I would not be a member of that cultural group.

So, why can you define the difference between the two, but deny the existence of races?

[MaineShark]

The fluidity in the definition is because of sociologists having difficulty in pinning down exactly what it means, especially in a day and age where more people than ever are marrying interracially.  100 years ago it was not difficult to point to a person and say "white person" or "black person" or mixtures such as "mulatto" "quadroon" "Harufu" Etc etc.

Sociologists don't define matters of biology.

If you wanted to define a race by one single physical trait, and ignore any of the social and cultural characteristics that go with the myriad other physical traits.   The error you are making here is equating my list of traits to the definition of race.  You've mixed the order up of cause and effect.  I've claimed these races have these characteristics, not that they are defined exclusively by them.

Oh, please do give us a definition of "White" or "Black."  This should be entertaining...

I said it was a fact.  Theory =/= opinion.  You have confused the two definitions for theory.  Please, if you are going to call gravity an opinion, provide some contemporary data opining how gravity is not a fact.

A scientific theory is an opinion.  It is an educated opinion, but it is still an opinion.  No scientist will claim anything is "fact" except rhetorically.

Prove to me that two objects will, at all times and places, obey a particular inverse-square law.  Not possible.  You would have to examine all possible times and places, to do it.  What the theory of gravitation is, is a well-established statistical set which has been tested in a variety of places in the space near a particular planet.  Cosmologists postulate (that means assume) that they can apply that set to the rest of the universe, but there is no way to prove it, as any scientist will tell you.

Thanks for the reference.  Dunbar doesn't claim that one considers people outside of their closest 150 friends to be "not people".

Yes, he does.  As I said, it's a starting point.

So, why can you define the difference between the two, but deny the existence of races?

I can define the difference between "libertarian" and "socialist."  Does that mean that those cultural groups are races?

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

a black guy says ":my favorite white dude is David Spade"

david spade is my favorite skinny punk

[Russell Kanning]

Not that I'm a big fan of the song, but that reminds me of  "I am me, and you are you, and we are we, and we are all together . . ." 

some of my best friends are moptops .... and eggmen

[Russell Kanning]

Can I ask why not?
Even if a group was opposed to say 'secession' of NH from the US? How can anyone be opposed to leaving the UN?

kinda funny huh ... dada chose the un as an enemy because we assumed we would have most people's support.

[Russell Kanning]

since my families are now quite mixed ... I consider myself to be a native american .... who doesn't like the US

[Raineyrocks]

I'm me and it's that simple for me anyway.    

Not that I'm a big fan of the song, but that reminds me of  "I am me, and you are you, and we are we, and we are all together . . ." 
Save yourself some time and energy and try to resist the urge to read too much into that.    it was just a silly song I thought  of . . .

Then again, it just might seem too important to resist.   

Who sings that song anyway?  It sounds familiar to me but I'm not positive that I've heard it before.

[sandm000]

The fluidity in the definition is because of sociologists having difficulty in pinning down exactly what it means, especially in a day and age where more people than ever are marrying interracially.  100 years ago it was not difficult to point to a person and say "white person" or "black person" or mixtures such as "mulatto" "quadroon" "Harufu" Etc etc.

Sociologists don't define matters of biology.

If you wanted to define a race by one single physical trait, and ignore any of the social and cultural characteristics that go with the myriad other physical traits.   The error you are making here is equating my list of traits to the definition of race.  You've mixed the order up of cause and effect.  I've claimed these races have these characteristics, not that they are defined exclusively by them.

Oh, please do give us a definition of "White" or "Black."  This should be entertaining...

I said it was a fact.  Theory =/= opinion.  You have confused the two definitions for theory.  Please, if you are going to call gravity an opinion, provide some contemporary data opining how gravity is not a fact.

A scientific theory is an opinion.  It is an educated opinion, but it is still an opinion.  No scientist will claim anything is "fact" except rhetorically.

Prove to me that two objects will, at all times and places, obey a particular inverse-square law.  Not possible.  You would have to examine all possible times and places, to do it.  What the theory of gravitation is, is a well-established statistical set which has been tested in a variety of places in the space near a particular planet.  Cosmologists postulate (that means assume) that they can apply that set to the rest of the universe, but there is no way to prove it, as any scientist will tell you.

Thanks for the reference.  Dunbar doesn't claim that one considers people outside of their closest 150 friends to be "not people".

Yes, he does.  As I said, it's a starting point.

So, why can you define the difference between the two, but deny the existence of races?

I can define the difference between "libertarian" and "socialist."  Does that mean that those cultural groups are races?

Joe

All we seem to do is argue about the definition of 'race'.  If you don't accept the current popular definition that's fine with me, I don't think I can convince you, but maybe you would prefer to call the groups something else, ethnicities, clades, tribes, conclaves, clans, etc.

And as for Dunbars Number, where in his paper does he claim anyone outside of the group isn't a person?  I will admit he talks a bit about neo-cortex size, but he does this in the context of friendships, so I assume that if one is outside the 147.8 people one can know, they are 'not-friends' or perhaps 'enemies', but Dunbar doesn't call them 'not-people'.
Or are you talking about some other authors interpretation of Dunbar's work?  I read This paper by Dunbar.

[John Edward Mercier]

Can I ask why not?
Even if a group was opposed to say 'secession' of NH from the US? How can anyone be opposed to leaving the UN?

kinda funny huh ... dada chose the un as an enemy because we assumed we would have most people's support.

I don't view them as an enemy... just simply unnecessary.

[MaineShark]

All we seem to do is argue about the definition of 'race'.  If you don't accept the current popular definition that's fine with me, I don't think I can convince you, but maybe you would prefer to call the groups something else, ethnicities, clades, tribes, conclaves, clans, etc.

Why don't you actually give a definition, to see if I will accept it or not?

And as for Dunbars Number, where in his paper does he claim anyone outside of the group isn't a person?  I will admit he talks a bit about neo-cortex size, but he does this in the context of friendships, so I assume that if one is outside the 147.8 people one can know, they are 'not-friends' or perhaps 'enemies', but Dunbar doesn't call them 'not-people'.
Or are you talking about some other authors interpretation of Dunbar's work?  I read This paper by Dunbar.

I have repeatedly stated that this is a beginning.  I'm not a freakin' tutor.  Go do some actual research.

Joe

[sandm000]

All we seem to do is argue about the definition of 'race'.  If you don't accept the current popular definition that's fine with me, I don't think I can convince you, but maybe you would prefer to call the groups something else, ethnicities, clades, tribes, conclaves, clans, etc.

Why don't you actually give a definition, to see if I will accept it or not?

Like this definition?

Races do exist, and they are social constructs based on physical attributes of a hereditary group.  Much the same way that dog breeds exist.  We can still interbreed and we can all see the outward physical differences.

or this one?

Maybe this is just a case of semantics, because Race, by definition is define a group of people by physical appearance or common heredity.

Read a bit here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29

Since primate-derived brains aren't capable* of viewing "others" as people, I say that anyone who believes in race is a racist, because it's not biologically possible for them to be viewing members of another species as people.

*emphasis mine, these are the gigantic claims I'm asking you to substantiate.  Who says they aren't capable?  It wasn't Dunbar, as you claimed earlier.

I have repeatedly stated that this is a beginning.  I'm not a freakin' tutor.  Go do some actual research.

I went and did the research.  I found the article where DUNBAR made his claims about interpersonal relationships.  If you want me to see some other viewpoint, especially one you are trying to convince me is correct, I think you should be the person supplying the material you are basing your statements on.  That is the way that arguments work.  I make claims and I support them with references.  Yet, you are making claims and asking me to supply your references.  "I'm not a freakin' tutor."  Go ahead and support your claims if you can, and if you can't; deny or recant the claims.