Nobel Prize winner gagged.

[jj]

warren zevon rip wrote:
> LOL. Sorry. I am no geneticist -
Yes, I know that from previous discussions :- )
I just need a list of all those "races" we keep hearing
> about, and their presumbaly easily identifiable characteristics.

That article points out that while you can identify vague physical
characteristics and possibly classify them as phenotypes [like 'Japs' or
'Chinks'; what we might call 'races']- in fact the genetic differences do not
remotely support such a conclusion. In brief, there ain't no such thing as
race.

> Your point being? My point was merely to point out that glazed
> domestic habitats are still often at risk from rocky projectiles.
Perhaps I was trying to introduce a Subarctic even-toed ungulate into an
unfeasibly-small aperture in a beloniform clothes-making implement.

[Sam Slater]

Just a thought Wazza..............

These people who deny races exist, are the same people that deem others racist !laugh!

If races don't exist, neither does racism. We need a new word........and back in time we have to go.

'Colour Prejudice' sound ok? (NOT 'color'!!!!!!!!)

[jj]

warren zevon rip wrote:
> Still lost me there - Bible quotation? But why, prithee?
Supposed to be a 'witty' riposte to the the 'glass houses' thing.
It obviously failed.

I can't cope with this New Improved Wazza sans Nasty Sarcasm.
You're not ill, are you|?

[jj]

Now I'm REALLY worried.

[Sam Slater]

You have a point -as usual- but the difference I see is:

A non-believer of race, calling someone a racist, is giving belief in race credibility, while criticising the belief in God, like atheists do, doesn't give the same credibility in God.

If a person is colour prejudiced, you may call him/her so, and mock/educate them for believing in race.

I hope I worded that right!

[jj]

Today, I watched, inter alia, MASH and 'the World at War'.
Both useful correctives to the notion of racial superiority.