woods321 Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Kinaz... Is intelligence measurable? Do you feel 2 highly intelligent people have a higher probability of creating an offspring with a higher level of intelligence? What is it that makes that German Shepherd much more intelligent on average than the Dalmation? Culture? Or genes?
Sks Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Once again, you guys are lacking fact in this attempt. Among Natives, there are WIDE variations in height, size, hair, color, and so forth. A DUMB comparison because you don't see the same things as you would in BREEDS OF DOGS! Among "Caucasians" (not necessarily "whites") there are WIDE variations as well. You see this too among Africans and Asians. The amount of difference is in NO WAY comparable to one breed of dog v. another. Unless you're still going by a text book that was published in the 1940s, you shouldn't even dare make such a comparison. ALSO, when you want to go according to racial groupings, you have Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, first and foremost. LOL, and within your race Middle Easterners and Indians are included. Not a different dog, same dog. Its not the same dog, two white people are much more similar in physical attributes and genetic makeup then a white/black person. You are comparing variation's inside dog breeds to variations between breeds, they clearly aren't the same.
KinAZ Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Kinaz... Is intelligence measurable? Do you feel 2 highly intelligent people have a higher probability of creating an offspring with a higher level of intelligence? What is it that makes that German Shepherd much more intelligent on average than the Dalmation? Culture? Or genes? LOL, to say that, one would have to say that one race is naturally more intelligent than another. But, once again, you Mr. Woody have missed my point. How much variation is there between a group of German Shepherds? Compare that variation to a group of Caucasians. You're missing the point because you simply don't want to see it. Compare the variation among Caucasoids to the variation among Mongoloids. There is just as much variation within the groups as there is when you compare one group to another just about. Why? Because race... look it up... starts with those 3 groups... Caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid. Those groups are determined, or better yet, those groups are "maintained" because of cultural similarities, based on known history and archaeological findings. Northern Africans (for the most part, and racism aside) are generally termed "Caucasoid" because they have long standing cultural ties with the rest of the Caucasoids in the middle east, Asia, and Europe. Sub-Saharan Africans are generally termed Negroids as they do not have the long stand cultural ties or similarities to those in Northern Africa. I won't pretend that this didn't all have racist beginnings, buuuut.... look it up hun. If you want to make a "breed" of humans, how do intend to determine who is what? Who is white? There are plenty who will say that Jews and many Italians aren't "white" and others who will swear that they are. Based on what? Can we base this on Europe? While "race" varies a lot in Russia (hahaha), and the most densely populated areas are on the European side, if I'm not mistaken most of Russia is technically in Asia. Who is going to make who white and who not?
KinAZ Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Its not the same dog, two white people are much more similar in physical attributes and genetic makeup then a white/black person. You are comparing variation's inside dog breeds to variations between breeds, they clearly aren't the same. I said "caucasian" I don't believe I said "white". See my most above...
DunnoWhat Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Once again, you guys are lacking fact in this attempt. Among Natives, there are WIDE variations in height, size, hair, color, and so forth. A DUMB comparison because you don't see the same things as you would in BREEDS OF DOGS! Among "Caucasians" (not necessarily "whites") there are WIDE variations as well. You see this too among Africans and Asians. The amount of difference is in NO WAY comparable to one breed of dog v. another. Unless you're still going by a text book that was published in the 1940s, you shouldn't even dare make such a comparison. ALSO, when you want to go according to racial groupings, you have Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, first and foremost. LOL, and within your race Middle Easterners and Indians are included. Not a different dog, same dog. It's true that there are different types of people in each group. In Europe every country varies to some degree and in Africa you have even bigger variations among Blacks. So, why not have a bit of diversity in the world instead of trying to make everybody brown??
KinAZ Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 It's true that there are different types of people in each group. In Europe every country varies to some degree and in Africa you have even bigger variations among Blacks. So, why not have a bit of diversity in the world instead of trying to make everybody brown?? I don't wanna make everyone brown. I think there should be more selective breeding so that the redhead population can experience a boost. I was only speaking on the notion that human beings are so different according to racial lines (genetically speaking) that we can be compared to different types of animals. Just because we all have blood and muscles doesn't mean we're all exactly a like. But just because we don't all look exactly a like doesn't mean we're totally different either. That variation that is between different groups, also exists within groups, when we're talking about human beings. This animal comparison, even according to breed, just doesn't hold any water. Honestly, I actually agree with certain groups wanting to marry their own to preserve rare culture and heritage (especially Native peoples). So, I have no problems with those who want to stick with "their own"... it's just the things people are spewing in defense of it are ludicrous. They're not based on facts, studies, or any scientific understanding. Why can't people just say "I only date white women, because I am only attracted to white women." And "I don't think that races should mix because it causes too many social or identity problems." and let that be the end of it?
woods321 Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 The concept of the races of men are synonymous with the word "breed" used to differentiate different kinds of cattle and dogs. All cattle are one, yet there are different breeds such as Holsteins and Hereford. All dogs are one, yet there are different breeds of dogs from Great Danes, Bloodhounds, to Chihauhaus. Whereas the word "breed" is used with animal species, the word "race" is applied to mankind. Yes, there are variations within German Shepherds. Their are variations within Dalmations. German Shepherds on avg are much more intelligent than Dalmations. WHY?
KinAZ Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Of course it is! LOL, I already noted the racist beginnings of racial categorization among humans. Look up the HISTORY of it, and then look up modern understanding. Ex. Downs syndrome was initially believed to be some sort of prehistory mongoloidal genetic screw-up until it was found among Africans as well. And since asians are more evolved than africans, and of course, the whites the most evolved of all... it was figured that this could not be the case. LMAO Seriously, do some research. Again, I don't care what the word means. I understand completely how it became associated with human beings. But this does not change the FACT that these classifications are currently based along historical and cultural lines presumably. WHY? Because science was finally able to admit that their previous theories about racial differences did not hold water, and that their research was in fact based in racist ideology. You've used google to find what you posted above. Now go google racial groupings among humans.
Sks Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Of course it is! LOL, I already noted the racist beginnings of racial categorization among humans. Look up the HISTORY of it, and then look up modern understanding. Ex. Downs syndrome was initially believed to be some sort of prehistory mongoloidal genetic screw-up until it was found among Africans as well. And since asians are more evolved than africans, and of course, the whites the most evolved of all... it was figured that this could not be the case. LMAO Seriously, do some research. Again, I don't care what the word means. I understand completely how it became associated with human beings. But this does not change the FACT that these classifications are currently based along historical and cultural lines presumably. WHY? Because science was finally able to admit that their previous theories about racial differences did not hold water, and that their research was in fact based in racist ideology. You've used google to find what you posted above. Now go google racial groupings among humans. All dog breeds can get cancer, that does not mean all dogs are the same breed.
KinAZ Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 And that, once again, had nothing to do with my point or anything else I was saying. LOL
sweet_tea12 Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 From my own experiences, love knows no color! Doesn't make it any easier, but I think this is true.
Sks Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 And that, once again, had nothing to do with my point or anything else I was saying. LOL Whats your point? I fail to see anything you are saying beyond attempting to prove that all humans are one breed when they clearly aren't.
KinAZ Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Whats your point? I fail to see anything you are saying beyond attempting to prove that all humans are one breed when they clearly aren't. Clearly aren't? That would be one man's opinion versus numerous scientific findings and studies. Right... And I think Hello Kitty rocks. But really, who the hell cares? Your racial "theories" are about as important as my opinion of Hello Kitty, as... it's not based on anything currently accepted by the scientific community. Baseless...
Sks Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Clearly aren't? That would be one man's opinion versus numerous scientific findings and studies. Right... And I think Hello Kitty rocks. But really, who the hell cares? Your racial "theories" are about as important as my opinion of Hello Kitty, as... it's not based on anything currently accepted by the scientific community. Baseless... Not baseless at all, quiet the opposite - the scientific community embraces this viewpoint as it demonstrates evolution.
KinAZ Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Not baseless at all, quiet the opposite - the scientific community embraces this viewpoint as it demonstrates evolution. Maybe it did back in 1939... As I've already said... find a book that wasn't written in the 1940s. I've done my research, and I've written papers on this as well. Lots of modern information out there... you might find it interesting.
Sks Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Maybe it did back in 1939... As I've already said... find a book that wasn't written in the 1940s. I've done my research, and I've written papers on this as well. Lots of modern information out there... you might find it interesting. I am simply right...........
Recommended Posts