CNN Only Took Hours To Play Race Card.....

[SMR 368]

You're crazy

That's a convenient defense. When you have absolutely no evidence or even a way of consistently explaining your point, you just state that it's obvious, everyone knows it, and anyone who doesn't is crazy. The Emperor has no clothes on.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're arguing semsntics. It's meaningless. And you're so up your own ####### you actually think it makes sense..

Let's pretend that race doesn't exist, that issues relating to it don't exist. Brilliant.

[Danno 1,228]

From a scientific and legal perspective, for something to exist, there has to be evidence of it. That is, there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist beyond the fact that we have no evidence to believe that it does exist. Thus, in this case, the burden of proof rests squarely on you to prove that race does exist. If you think it is so ridiculous to suggest that race does not exist beyond physical characteristics, you clearly have evidence of what race is and can define it. I'm waiting.

You can't seriously believe color of skin is the only difference between say a Asian and an African?

Have you never wondered how skeletal remains are identified in this regard?

Are you not aware of the number of Illnesses or treatments which effect different races, differently?

These are points of uncontested science.

[SMR 368]

You're arguing semsntics. It's meaningless. And you're so up your own ####### you actually think it makes sense..

Let's pretend that race doesn't exist, that issues relating to it don't exist. Brilliant.

I'm not pretending. If I was, there would be a way to prove that race does exist beyond an arbitrary set of physical features.

We can sit here going back and forth with you saying that I'm crazy and me denying it. Or, you can take the obvious step and reveal why race clearly does exist.

Prove in a conclusive and non-arbitrary way that Obama is black and Mitch McConnell is white without using physical characteristics. If race is so obvious, this should be a simple exercise.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why? It's a pointless exercise. It proves nothing.

You're the one claiming that barack Obama isn't black.

What is at issue is whether the black experience is homogenous. Obviously it isnt. That doesn't mean that individuals from from certain communities don't share common experiences.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Ron Burgundy

[Danno 1,228]

I'm not pretending. If I was, there would be a way to prove that race does exist beyond an arbitrary set of physical features.

We can sit here going back and forth with you saying that I'm crazy and me denying it. Or, you can take the obvious step and reveal why race clearly does exist.

Prove in a conclusive and non-arbitrary way that Obama is black and Mitch McConnell is white without using physical characteristics. If race is so obvious, this should be a simple exercise.

I'm glad to see you are broadening your "Skin only" claim.

Since you have studied this topic, tell me, how does one prove a gray squirrel is not really a red squirrel or Ducks for that matter which have only slight feather variations.....and if there really be no difference, why do some of these similar birds and animals get special protection... if it's really meaningless?

[SMR 368]

You can't seriously believe color of skin is the only difference between say a Asian and an African?

Have you never wondered how skeletal remains are identified in this regard?

Are you not aware of the number of Illnesses or treatments which effect different races, differently?

These are points of uncontested science.

No, not only skin color, obviously. Which is why I generalized to physical characteristics. People can be separated into groups by genotype. But there are tons of different ways to classify genotypes and group people (height, skin color, eye color, hair color, widow's peak, tongue rolling, facial shape, etc.). If you want to define race in terms of a certain subset of those genotypes, I suppose you can do that. But those groups would not really be meaningful beyond (as you said) predicting health conditions.

And considering the amount of genetic mingling that has occurred, I think you would be hard pressed to create a genotypical definition of race that would be non-ambiguous.

And in the end, this is all a discussion of physical characteristics. I've never denied that people can be classified into physical characteristics. What I'm stating is that beyond those physical characteristics (and the associated health risks) race has no meaning.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually this discussion is about why there are no black senators. And why, according to you this observation is somehow racist.

[SMR 368]

I'm glad to see you are broadening your "Skin only" claim.

Since you have studied this topic, tell me, how does one prove a gray squirrel is not really a red squirrel or Ducks for that matter which have only slight feather variations.....and if there really be no difference, why do some of these similar birds and animals get special protection... if it's really meaningless?

I'm not a squirrel expert (and don't play one on TV) but I believe that gray and red squirrels are different species. That means that they don't interbreed. That's a meaningful, definable, testable distinction. If they are in fact the same species, the distinction is probably something to do with the color. But if they are the same species and interbreed, you are going to end up with gray areas (or grayish red areas) where certain squirrels don't really fit into either group. At that point, how you define your groups is arbitrary and the groups don't have some universal meaning.

But as I said in my last post, it's not an issue of whether or not you can distinguish people based on physical characteristics (clearly you can). Those physical characteristics don't have some huge overarching meaning. Race is an arbitrary construction of people's perception. It's not a definable, universal, consistent concept. Thus, from a legal perspective it shouldn't exist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What legal perspective?

[SMR 368]

Actually this discussion is about why there are no black senators. And why, according to you this observation is somehow racist.

My claim is that it is racist to assume that a person with certain physical characteristics would be better represented by people with similar physical characteristics.

And I'm still waiting for a definition of what it means to be "black" and an explanation of which specific issues are "African American issues."

[Jenn! 918]

And I'm still waiting for a definition of what it means to be "black" and an explanation of which specific issues are "African American issues."

http://www.naacp.org/programs/

That's not to say that every single black American is concerned with these and only these issues, but it's an idea for you...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why are you waiting for it? look for yourself if you are interested in that. Do your own dirty work.

I have already told you that there is no common racial experience. Certainly that is true when applied to individuals, but if you accept that many blacks communities share similar issues and concerns, then you have to question whether the absence of blacks in one of the houses of government might indicate that their needs are not being addressed.

Is it as simple as saying that you can't represent blacks if you aren't black? Of course not, but marked disparities shouldn't be ignored out of hand. Nor are they racist, that's just ridiculous.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Ron Burgundy

[Danno 1,228]

No, not only skin color, obviously. Which is why I generalized to physical characteristics. People can be separated into groups by genotype. But there are tons of different ways to classify genotypes and group people (height, skin color, eye color, hair color, widow's peak, tongue rolling, facial shape, etc.). If you want to define race in terms of a certain subset of those genotypes, I suppose you can do that. But those groups would not really be meaningful beyond (as you said) predicting health conditions.

And considering the amount of genetic mingling that has occurred, I think you would be hard pressed to create a genotypical definition of race that would be non-ambiguous.

And in the end, this is all a discussion of physical characteristics. I've never denied that people can be classified into physical characteristics. What I'm stating is that beyond those physical characteristics (and the associated health risks) race has no meaning.

It seems the only place "race has no meaning" is in the western world among europeans.

I would suggest Race has a whole lot of meaning and you need only look around at the many race based groups, clubs, associations, social events (and more) to see this.

Just because your race is meaningless to you...... does not mean it does not have real meaning to others.

Of Course Race is not the only thing people identify with but surely it is one of the strongest.

As to the Senate and the attention paid to the racial makeup of that body: The Founders went to great length to insure that representation was paramount in our new Government.

You can see this in how our representation is drawn from as well as the Electoral college which insures domestic tranquility via fair representation.

True at the time we were a fairly mono-race people so provisions were never addressed by race but they knew, when people feel their interests are not heard, it leads to rebellion.

Since 1965 when we changed Immigration laws we have experienced a mass inflow of people.... not from the various parts of Europe but from the 4 corners of the world.

We are going to have to figure out a way to give these groups a sense of "shared rule" beyond lining up behind the White-guy.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Danno

[SMR 368]

http://www.naacp.org/programs/

That's not to say that every single black American is concerned with these and only these issues, but it's an idea for you...

So-Called "African American issues" from your link:

Media Diversity, Litigation, Federal Advocacy, ACT-SO, Climate Justice Initiative, Economic Opportunity, Education, Health Programs, Civic Engagement, Justice.

Let's ignore for a second that you are taking this list from the NAACP which is just a bunch of lobbyists.

ACT-SO is a racist competition which doesn't allow certain entrants based on physical characteristics. Media Diversity is a codeword for institutionalized racism. For the rest of these issues why would you expect white people to be any less concerned? Do white people not like health, education, economic opportunities, and justice?