| Revision as of 10:30, 22 November 2006 editPanfilio~enwiki (talk | contribs)6 edits →Anon← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:20, 22 November 2006 edit undoBlanchesseOblige (talk | contribs)6 edits →AnonNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :This is just what I mean. There are some facts, that humans eare a single species and appear have limited genetic variation relative to other species. There are two theories about human origins, and several points of view regarding the biological relevance of "race". To conclude, as you seem to have done that certain theories are more accepted than others is incorrect, indeed the majority of biologista and anthropologists support the Recent out of Africa Model, now whereas it is corrct to say that this model is not accepted by all scientists and many scientists and anthropologists have provided much data that seem to contradict this model, at present there is still more evidence in favour of this model than in favour of the assimilationist model. I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, and I do not think you have shown any evidence of being an expert either, but at least I am prepared to accept that the evidence at present is inconclusive for either model to be considered obsolete. The concept of biological "races" is in a similar state, some scientists view the geographical distribution of alleles in the human population as "population based" and define these populations as "races". Other scientists view the distribution of alleles as "geographic" and take the view that defining people in terms of descrete "populations" is a fallacy because these populations are not discrete, but are continuously distributed, they point to the result that in many regions on the borders of "discrete populations" the inhabitants do not fit into any discrete "population/race", but display characteristics of both. They claim that this indicates that there are actually no discrete "races" and that therefore "race" is a biologically arbitrary designaton of no biological/medical value. I am prepared to accept that there are merits in all of these hypotheses. It is incorrect to try to claim, as you have, that "race" is a purely "biological" phenomenon, race is a political, social and cultural phenomenon, and has been for many centuries, one cannot divorce the biology from the social issues, in trying to do so you are being naive in the extreme. "Race" is one of the most politically sensitive issues in the modern world, with good reason, to try and claim that there is a scientific consensus regarding the classification of humans on the subspecific level is incorrect. I find your constant claims to be representing the settled will of the scientific establishment not only disingeneous, but quite frankly ludicrous, evidence exists on both sides of the scientific debate, you cannot claim that it does not, indeed in doing so you undermine your own claims to impartiality and show a distinct bias. Furthermore I freely admit that I hold "racialism" in contempt from a social and moral perspective, it is a repugnant ideology that is best left in the past where it belongs. From a humanist political point of view "race" is totally discredited, it has been used as an excuse for commiting all sorts of crimes, notably by your own government, and as such the sooner we as a species dismiss this flawed idea the better. ] 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | :This is just what I mean. There are some facts, that humans eare a single species and appear have limited genetic variation relative to other species. There are two theories about human origins, and several points of view regarding the biological relevance of "race". To conclude, as you seem to have done that certain theories are more accepted than others is incorrect, indeed the majority of biologista and anthropologists support the Recent out of Africa Model, now whereas it is corrct to say that this model is not accepted by all scientists and many scientists and anthropologists have provided much data that seem to contradict this model, at present there is still more evidence in favour of this model than in favour of the assimilationist model. I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, and I do not think you have shown any evidence of being an expert either, but at least I am prepared to accept that the evidence at present is inconclusive for either model to be considered obsolete. The concept of biological "races" is in a similar state, some scientists view the geographical distribution of alleles in the human population as "population based" and define these populations as "races". Other scientists view the distribution of alleles as "geographic" and take the view that defining people in terms of descrete "populations" is a fallacy because these populations are not discrete, but are continuously distributed, they point to the result that in many regions on the borders of "discrete populations" the inhabitants do not fit into any discrete "population/race", but display characteristics of both. They claim that this indicates that there are actually no discrete "races" and that therefore "race" is a biologically arbitrary designaton of no biological/medical value. I am prepared to accept that there are merits in all of these hypotheses. It is incorrect to try to claim, as you have, that "race" is a purely "biological" phenomenon, race is a political, social and cultural phenomenon, and has been for many centuries, one cannot divorce the biology from the social issues, in trying to do so you are being naive in the extreme. "Race" is one of the most politically sensitive issues in the modern world, with good reason, to try and claim that there is a scientific consensus regarding the classification of humans on the subspecific level is incorrect. I find your constant claims to be representing the settled will of the scientific establishment not only disingeneous, but quite frankly ludicrous, evidence exists on both sides of the scientific debate, you cannot claim that it does not, indeed in doing so you undermine your own claims to impartiality and show a distinct bias. Furthermore I freely admit that I hold "racialism" in contempt from a social and moral perspective, it is a repugnant ideology that is best left in the past where it belongs. From a humanist political point of view "race" is totally discredited, it has been used as an excuse for commiting all sorts of crimes, notably by your own government, and as such the sooner we as a species dismiss this flawed idea the better. ] 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I'm a Spanish proctologist by trade resident in London, and have also dabbled much in the areas of eugenics and raciology, so I consider myself justified and qualified in commenting on Alun's wobbly logic. There are indeed races old man and all races are neither equal nor in fact properly speaking human. The Negroid race, for example, is a race and it is human but it has no business being in Europe for reasons of climate incompatibility (they simply go crazy in highly urban environments and become prone to drug-abuse, out-of-wedlock breeding, and violent ne'rdowellness, the reason they're cropping up more and more this side of the Thames is because of the Bush Arabs who are literally making a killing off this new type of slave trade they call human trafficking. Secondly, although the Mongoloid or Yellow Race may in certain regards be even more intelligent than the White Man he loses in the physical and spiritual department, this is why there has never and could never be a Stalinist (you will recall Uncle Joe was 2/4s Tartar) or Maoist type "purge" in Western Europe. The Mulatto is an interesting and separate class in itself, and although many mulatta women are quite the fire starters they are tigresses at the dinner table as well as in bed, and although the latter is all well and good the former tends scare away dinner guests. I could go on old man but I think I've my point and do suggest you spend less time sitting at the computer it's bad for your prostate, take it from me I'm a proctologist.] | I'm a Spanish proctologist by trade resident in London, and have also dabbled much in the areas of eugenics and raciology, so I consider myself justified and qualified in commenting on Alun's wobbly logic. There are indeed races old man and all races are neither equal nor in fact properly speaking human. The Negroid race, for example, is a race and it is human but it has no business being in Europe for reasons of climate incompatibility (they simply go crazy in highly urban environments and become prone to drug-abuse, out-of-wedlock breeding, and violent ne'rdowellness, the reason they're cropping up more and more this side of the Thames is because of the Bush Arabs who are literally making a killing off this new type of slave trade they call human trafficking. Secondly, although the Mongoloid or Yellow Race may in certain regards be even more intelligent than the White Man he loses in the physical and spiritual department, this is why there has never and could never be a Stalinist (you will recall Uncle Joe was 2/4s Tartar) or Maoist type "purge" in Western Europe. The Mulatto is an interesting and separate class in itself, and although many mulatta women are quite the fire starters they are tigresses at the dinner table as well as in bed, and although the latter is all well and good the former tends scare away dinner guests. I could go on old man but I think I've my point and do suggest you spend less time sitting at the computer it's bad for your prostate, take it from me I'm a proctologist.]] | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 22 November 2006
|
| Apr 2004 - Oct 2006 |
| Oct 2004 - Nov 2006 |
HELLO
Thanks for the lovely note :) Have come back to make a change or two. I'll pop in now and again, but not to edit. It's too nasty. Keep burning the flame!!!! Enzedbrit 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
- Medation has begun here. | AndonicO 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Black people
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Black People, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottoupload (talk • contribs)
- This warning is anonymous so I am disregarding it. Also any person can see that I did not "vandalise" the article. Please do not accuse good faith editors of being vandals just because you disagree with their edits, this is a very serious offense.Alun 06:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Pax vobiscum
I got a wolf ticket too, and I hadn't even edited for a couple of days since I hate edit wars. I have already mentioned the "wolf tickets" to a couple of administrators who know of my own work from a way long time ago. Filll should also be made aware of this abuse. P0M 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon
You said you did not want to continue this conversation. This was your express wish. So I archived the discussion. Please either stick to your descision or continue with the discussion properly. Alun 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are just repeating yourself now. I have read extensively arround the subject, your interpretation of the science is deeply flawed. You clearly have a political rather than a scientific take on this. There is no point in continuion this "discussion", you have your "opinion" and I have mine. There is absolutely no consensus in the fields of either genetics or anthropology, so we are just giving opinions. Maybe one day we will be able to get definitive answers to the issues of human origins and race, untill such time there is little point in blind contradiction of each other. The science supports both points of view. As such wikipedia should reflect this. Alun 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- How am I repeating myself when I bring in some more evidence, arguments and images to support my point. I have also read extensively around the subject, probably more so than you and my interpretation is not flawed since it is what most respected biologists and anthropologists think, not to mention it is based exactly from the data, not some twisted anti-racial view of it. The facts are what they are, but it is our interpretations that separates us, with me focusing on the differences, you on the similarities between populations (albeit yours with a pre-conceived, anti-racial and political sensitivity to the issue of race). Peace. 69.157.122.195 07:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- The facts are what they are,
- This is just what I mean. There are some facts, that humans eare a single species and appear have limited genetic variation relative to other species. There are two theories about human origins, and several points of view regarding the biological relevance of "race". To conclude, as you seem to have done that certain theories are more accepted than others is incorrect, indeed the majority of biologista and anthropologists support the Recent out of Africa Model, now whereas it is corrct to say that this model is not accepted by all scientists and many scientists and anthropologists have provided much data that seem to contradict this model, at present there is still more evidence in favour of this model than in favour of the assimilationist model. I do not pretend to be an expert in this field, and I do not think you have shown any evidence of being an expert either, but at least I am prepared to accept that the evidence at present is inconclusive for either model to be considered obsolete. The concept of biological "races" is in a similar state, some scientists view the geographical distribution of alleles in the human population as "population based" and define these populations as "races". Other scientists view the distribution of alleles as "geographic" and take the view that defining people in terms of descrete "populations" is a fallacy because these populations are not discrete, but are continuously distributed, they point to the result that in many regions on the borders of "discrete populations" the inhabitants do not fit into any discrete "population/race", but display characteristics of both. They claim that this indicates that there are actually no discrete "races" and that therefore "race" is a biologically arbitrary designaton of no biological/medical value. I am prepared to accept that there are merits in all of these hypotheses. It is incorrect to try to claim, as you have, that "race" is a purely "biological" phenomenon, race is a political, social and cultural phenomenon, and has been for many centuries, one cannot divorce the biology from the social issues, in trying to do so you are being naive in the extreme. "Race" is one of the most politically sensitive issues in the modern world, with good reason, to try and claim that there is a scientific consensus regarding the classification of humans on the subspecific level is incorrect. I find your constant claims to be representing the settled will of the scientific establishment not only disingeneous, but quite frankly ludicrous, evidence exists on both sides of the scientific debate, you cannot claim that it does not, indeed in doing so you undermine your own claims to impartiality and show a distinct bias. Furthermore I freely admit that I hold "racialism" in contempt from a social and moral perspective, it is a repugnant ideology that is best left in the past where it belongs. From a humanist political point of view "race" is totally discredited, it has been used as an excuse for commiting all sorts of crimes, notably by your own government, and as such the sooner we as a species dismiss this flawed idea the better. Alun 09:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Spanish proctologist by trade resident in London, and have also dabbled much in the areas of eugenics and raciology, so I consider myself justified and qualified in commenting on Alun's wobbly logic. There are indeed races old man and all races are neither equal nor in fact properly speaking human. The Negroid race, for example, is a race and it is human but it has no business being in Europe for reasons of climate incompatibility (they simply go crazy in highly urban environments and become prone to drug-abuse, out-of-wedlock breeding, and violent ne'rdowellness, the reason they're cropping up more and more this side of the Thames is because of the Bush Arabs who are literally making a killing off this new type of slave trade they call human trafficking. Secondly, although the Mongoloid or Yellow Race may in certain regards be even more intelligent than the White Man he loses in the physical and spiritual department, this is why there has never and could never be a Stalinist (you will recall Uncle Joe was 2/4s Tartar) or Maoist type "purge" in Western Europe. The Mulatto is an interesting and separate class in itself, and although many mulatta women are quite the fire starters they are tigresses at the dinner table as well as in bed, and although the latter is all well and good the former tends scare away dinner guests. I could go on old man but I think I've my point and do suggest you spend less time sitting at the computer it's bad for your prostate, take it from me I'm a proctologist.Panfilio]