Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Drawing the line

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes nowhere. Recently I saw
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
      Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes nowhere.
      Recently I saw a documentary on a little known hominid that seems to have lived much more temporally close to us than evolution placed his contemporaries. The genome should have gone extinct better than a million years ago but lived and died out only one hundred thousand years ago. The hominid was a midget with a brain size approximating that of Leeky`s "Lucy" . It used tools, stone tools and lived in Micronesia with pygmy elephants. Should we consider this ape man human? He may have devolved from cro magnons .
      You see I think it easier to talk of an extinct hominid as there is no racial component to stumble over. Was his existence an evolution or a devolution. This fellow was only four feet tall but lived a life much like our stone age ancestors. Human, or not human? This guy is a real curve ball that could be called an extinct race. The show suggests many dead end humanoids have come and gone and the process is still active. That is where the controversy comes in . Evolutionary biology suggests this is a king of the hill contest with modern man standing on top and subtly or not so subtly removing the competition.
      I think Wil would say we do not have that right while Louise might say we cannot help what evolution moves us toward.
      Framing the argument in other than racial terms might defuse the controversy long enough to examine the process without rancor. If that little hominid were alive today would we be forced to provide alternative schools to make sure he passes his ACT test? Do we need provide miniature toilets so he can urinate with comfort? If he does not like clothes can he run about naked? I would suggest we have several evolving and devolving sub species as we speak but we do not know who will remain as king of the hill. If I label them I risk racism so I refuse to affix the emblem but that does not stop the process. I do not think we wish to stop the process. Bill
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Bill, Contemporary science does not give the concept of race any veracity at all. Humanity is so plastic, we have no idea what people looked like 20,000
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
        Bill,

        Contemporary science does not give the concept of "race" any veracity
        at all. Humanity is so plastic, we have no idea what people looked like
        20,000 years ago. Chinese and Japanese are direct descendants of Black
        Africans (they share a common black ancestor), and that development was
        relatively recent. The many tribes of plains Indians were descendants
        of the Chinese. So, what is a race? It is a mistaken idea.

        In any case, Louise is stuck in the 'idee fixe' that you mention. She
        cannot let it go. She is utterly obsessed with it, and imagines all
        kinds of conspiracies against her because of it. But I cannot allow
        this list to have that tendency represented without objection. It is
        that simple.

        Wil


        -----Original Message-----
        From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 1:05 pm
        Subject: [existlist] Drawing the line


        Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have
        fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes
        nowhere.

        Recently I saw a documentary on a little known hominid that seems to
        have lived much more temporally close to us than evolution placed his
        contemporaries. The genome should have gone extinct better than a
        million years ago but lived and died out only one hundred thousand
        years ago. The hominid was a midget with a brain size approximating
        that of Leeky`s "Lucy" . It used tools, stone tools and lived in
        Micronesia with pygmy elephants. Should we consider this ape man human?
        He may have devolved from cro magnons .

        You see I think it easier to talk of an extinct hominid as there is no
        racial component to stumble over. Was his existence an evolution or a
        devolution. This fellow was only four feet tall but lived a life much
        like our stone age ancestors. Human, or not human? This guy is a real
        curve ball that could be called an extinct race. The show suggests many
        dead end humanoids have come and gone and the process is still active.
        That is where the controversy comes in . Evolutionary biology suggests
        this is a king of the hill contest with modern man standing on top and
        subtly or not so subtly removing the competition.

        I think Wil would say we do not have that right while Louise might say
        we cannot help what evolution moves us toward.

        Framing the argument in other than racial terms might defuse the
        controversy long enough to examine the process without rancor. If that
        little hominid were alive today would we be forced to provide
        alternative schools to make sure he passes his ACT test? Do we need
        provide miniature toilets so he can urinate with comfort? If he does
        not like clothes can he run about naked? I would suggest we have
        several evolving and devolving sub species as we speak but we do not
        know who will remain as king of the hill. If I label them I risk
        racism so I refuse to affix the emblem but that does not stop the
        process. I do not think we wish to stop the process. Bill
      • bhvwd
        ... I can see your refusal to go down what you see as the slippery slope of racism but does your stance on the matter include a bow to correctness that denies
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          > Bill,
          >
          > Contemporary science does not give the concept of "race" any veracity
          > at all. Humanity is so plastic, we have no idea what people looked like
          > 20,000 years ago. Chinese and Japanese are direct descendants of Black
          > Africans (they share a common black ancestor), and that development was
          > relatively recent. The many tribes of plains Indians were descendants
          > of the Chinese. So, what is a race? It is a mistaken idea.
          >
          > In any case, Louise is stuck in the 'idee fixe' that you mention. She
          > cannot let it go. She is utterly obsessed with it, and imagines all
          > kinds of conspiracies against her because of it. But I cannot allow
          > this list to have that tendency represented without objection. It is
          > that simple.
          >
          > Wil
          > Wil, Science catalogs many racial traits. Sickle cell and the myriad of genetic problems that confront Jews come to mind. Why does this new virus kill Mexicans and only mildly sicken whites. In many ways a northern European genome is dramatically different from a Spanish indian genome. It seems a virus has found a way to more completely overcome the defense mechanisms of some of our species and not others. It is not wrong to see and discuss the differences that obviously exist in Homo Sapiens. I do not want to see our Mexican neighbors die off but early reports seem to suggest this new virus exploits differences we may not have even known about.
          I can see your refusal to go down what you see as the slippery slope of racism but does your stance on the matter include a bow to correctness that denies needed examinations? I do not want to refuse to examine facts because they are not the proper facts to some of those who hold certain political philosophies. I usually take science to be more important than political philosophy. I would not shy away from trying to find out why a Hispanic reacts more seriously to viral infection than others. To avoid such an investigation because it could be labeled racist is criminal, a race crime and a crime against humanity in general.
          I am not accusing you of such but can see how a no race attitude can cause great disruptions in possible advances of general knowledge. H1N1 is a real and dangerous racist. It may kill all or only part of our race. Fear of racism should not constrain all efforts to stop the dying. Bill
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 1:05 pm
          > Subject: [existlist] Drawing the line
          >
          >
          > Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have
          > fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes
          > nowhere.
          >
          > Recently I saw a documentary on a little known hominid that seems to
          > have lived much more temporally close to us than evolution placed his
          > contemporaries. The genome should have gone extinct better than a
          > million years ago but lived and died out only one hundred thousand
          > years ago. The hominid was a midget with a brain size approximating
          > that of Leeky`s "Lucy" . It used tools, stone tools and lived in
          > Micronesia with pygmy elephants. Should we consider this ape man human?
          > He may have devolved from cro magnons .
          >
          > You see I think it easier to talk of an extinct hominid as there is no
          > racial component to stumble over. Was his existence an evolution or a
          > devolution. This fellow was only four feet tall but lived a life much
          > like our stone age ancestors. Human, or not human? This guy is a real
          > curve ball that could be called an extinct race. The show suggests many
          > dead end humanoids have come and gone and the process is still active.
          > That is where the controversy comes in . Evolutionary biology suggests
          > this is a king of the hill contest with modern man standing on top and
          > subtly or not so subtly removing the competition.
          >
          > I think Wil would say we do not have that right while Louise might say
          > we cannot help what evolution moves us toward.
          >
          > Framing the argument in other than racial terms might defuse the
          > controversy long enough to examine the process without rancor. If that
          > little hominid were alive today would we be forced to provide
          > alternative schools to make sure he passes his ACT test? Do we need
          > provide miniature toilets so he can urinate with comfort? If he does
          > not like clothes can he run about naked? I would suggest we have
          > several evolving and devolving sub species as we speak but we do not
          > know who will remain as king of the hill. If I label them I risk
          > racism so I refuse to affix the emblem but that does not stop the
          > process. I do not think we wish to stop the process. Bill
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          Are Mexicans a different race? Mexico City has a high percentage of Castillian-Spanish, which is European. Chaipas is mostly Indian, and there are no virus
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
            Are Mexicans a different race? Mexico City has a high percentage of
            Castillian-Spanish, which is European. Chaipas is mostly Indian, and
            there are no virus outbreaks there as yet. Racially superior? There is
            cycle cell anemia in Mediterranean Jews and Arabs and Southern French.
            Are they race mongrels? No, the whole matter becomes muddled when race
            is brought into it. Family resemblances are just that.

            Besides, L. is into some mystical notion of race, like those Germans
            and French who thought the Grail was white superiority and the rest of
            it. I will not have it. Not any of it, especially in an Existentialism
            group. What does any of this crap have to do with that?

            We spend too much time on these things. I do not care about Louise's
            paranoid delusions, or her protests in behalf of mental illness or her
            mystical Britishness or any of it. She should go elsewhere if she
            cannot adhere to the group theme. Period.

            Wil

            -----Original Message-----
            From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 2:32 pm
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Drawing the line


            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

            >

            > Bill,

            >

            > Contemporary science does not give the concept of "race" any veracity

            > at all. Humanity is so plastic, we have no idea what people looked
            like

            > 20,000 years ago. Chinese and Japanese are direct descendants of
            Black

            > Africans (they share a common black ancestor), and that development
            was

            > relatively recent. The many tribes of plains Indians were descendants

            > of the Chinese. So, what is a race? It is a mistaken idea.

            >

            > In any case, Louise is stuck in the 'idee fixe' that you mention. She

            > cannot let it go. She is utterly obsessed with it, and imagines all

            > kinds of conspiracies against her because of it. But I cannot allow

            > this list to have that tendency represented without objection. It is

            > that simple.

            >

            > Wil

            > Wil, Science catalogs many racial traits. Sickle cell and the myriad
            of genetic problems that confront Jews come to mind. Why does this new
            virus kill Mexicans and only mildly sicken whites. In many ways a
            northern European genome is dramatically different from a Spanish
            indian genome. It seems a virus has found a way to more completely
            overcome the defense mechanisms of some of our species and not others.
            It is not wrong to see and discuss the differences that obviously exist
            in Homo Sapiens. I do not want to see our Mexican neighbors die off
            but early reports seem to suggest this new virus exploits differences
            we may not have even known about.

            I can see your refusal to go down what you see as the slippery slope
            of racism but does your stance on the matter include a bow to
            correctness that denies needed examinations? I do not want to refuse to
            examine facts because they are not the proper facts to some of those
            who hold certain political philosophies. I usually take science to be
            more important than political philosophy. I would not shy away from
            trying to find out why a Hispanic reacts more seriously to viral
            infection than others. To avoid such an investigation because it could
            be labeled racist is criminal, a race crime and a crime against
            humanity in general.

            I am not accusing you of such but can see how a no race attitude can
            cause great disruptions in possible advances of general knowledge.
            H1N1 is a real and dangerous racist. It may kill all or only part of
            our race. Fear of racism should not constrain all efforts to stop the
            dying. Bill

            >

            > -----Original Message-----

            > From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>

            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

            > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 1:05 pm

            > Subject: [existlist] Drawing the line

            >

            >

            > Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have

            > fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes

            > nowhere.

            >

            > Recently I saw a documentary on a little known hominid that seems
            to

            > have lived much more temporally close to us than evolution placed his

            > contemporaries. The genome should have gone extinct better than a

            > million years ago but lived and died out only one hundred thousand

            > years ago. The hominid was a midget with a brain size approximating

            > that of Leeky`s "Lucy" . It used tools, stone tools and lived in

            > Micronesia with pygmy elephants. Should we consider this ape man
            human?

            > He may have devolved from cro magnons .

            >

            > You see I think it easier to talk of an extinct hominid as there is
            no

            > racial component to stumble over. Was his existence an evolution or
            a

            > devolution. This fellow was only four feet tall but lived a life much

            > like our stone age ancestors. Human, or not human? This guy is a real

            > curve ball that could be called an extinct race. The show suggests
            many

            > dead end humanoids have come and gone and the process is still
            active.

            > That is where the controversy comes in . Evolutionary biology
            suggests

            > this is a king of the hill contest with modern man standing on top
            and

            > subtly or not so subtly removing the competition.

            >

            > I think Wil would say we do not have that right while Louise might
            say

            > we cannot help what evolution moves us toward.

            >

            > Framing the argument in other than racial terms might defuse the

            > controversy long enough to examine the process without rancor. If
            that

            > little hominid were alive today would we be forced to provide

            > alternative schools to make sure he passes his ACT test? Do we
            need

            > provide miniature toilets so he can urinate with comfort? If he does

            > not like clothes can he run about naked? I would suggest we have

            > several evolving and devolving sub species as we speak but we do not

            > know who will remain as king of the hill. If I label them I risk

            > racism so I refuse to affix the emblem but that does not stop the

            > process. I do not think we wish to stop the process. Bill

            >
          • devogney
            ... Wil, As I understand it, Mexicans are a mixture of Spanish and mid American indian.The Spanish soldiers mated with the natives of Mexico and the mixture is
            Message 5 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

              Wil,

              As I understand it, Mexicans are a mixture of Spanish and mid American indian.The Spanish soldiers mated with the natives of Mexico and the mixture is what we call Mexican. I presume that the indians who populated Mexico must have been much smaller than the indians of north America,because north American are usually tall and Mexicans are usually short, and Spanish are run of the mill Europeans as far as heigth.

              I have heard the theory that all humans originated in Africa, and that adaptation to colder climates over time produced the Caucasian and Oriental races. If the north American indians are the descendents of Chinese, the fact that north American are usually tall, and Chinese are usually short is a good example of adaptation to surroundings.China has been very highly populated for many years; whereas north America was scarcely populated with plenty of game and plant life to suppport a larger human being. I think race is a good example of evolutionary adapation. As for cases of sicle cell anemia being more prevanent among Mediteranian Jews, Arabs and Spanish, there is little doubt that both abilities and disabilities are often distributed with greater frequency among certain gene poools.Among races as well as species, there are various advantages and disadvantages. A cat lacks the olfactory abilities of a dog, but a cat can climb, and a homing pidgeon has a greater sense of direction. I'd suspect that if and when genetic engineering arrives, a superman might be created using DNA mental components from Jewish and Orientals,and various physical abilities from blacks etc. I agree very much with Bill that > {I can see your refusal to go down what you see as the slippery slope
              > of racism but does your stance on the matter include a bow to
              > correctness that denies needed examinations? I do not want to refuse to
              > examine facts because they are not the proper facts to some of those
              > who hold certain political philosophies. I usually take science to be
              > more important than political philosophy. I would not shy away from
              > trying to find out why a Hispanic reacts more seriously to viral
              > infection than others. To avoid such an investigation because it could
              > be labeled racist is criminal, a race crime and a crime against
              > humanity in general.]Bill

              I think it might have been a Pope or somebody who said of the first telescope that he wouldnt look in it etc. Of course, if it was the Pope or someone in power, that wouldnt necesarily mean he wasa stupid as much as he might have been smart enough to see the danger to his own power from a new view of the universe becoming prevalent among the masses.

              Tom





              >
              > Are Mexicans a different race? Mexico City has a high percentage of
              > Castillian-Spanish, which is European. Chaipas is mostly Indian, and
              > there are no virus outbreaks there as yet. Racially superior? There is
              > cycle cell anemia in Mediterranean Jews and Arabs and Southern French.
              > Are they race mongrels? No, the whole matter becomes muddled when race
              > is brought into it. Family resemblances are just that.
              >
              > Besides, L. is into some mystical notion of race, like those Germans
              > and French who thought the Grail was white superiority and the rest of
              > it. I will not have it. Not any of it, especially in an Existentialism
              > group. What does any of this crap have to do with that?
              >
              > We spend too much time on these things. I do not care about Louise's
              > paranoid delusions, or her protests in behalf of mental illness or her
              > mystical Britishness or any of it. She should go elsewhere if she
              > cannot adhere to the group theme. Period.
              >
              > Wil
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 2:32 pm
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Drawing the line
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Bill,
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Contemporary science does not give the concept of "race" any veracity
              >
              > > at all. Humanity is so plastic, we have no idea what people looked
              > like
              >
              > > 20,000 years ago. Chinese and Japanese are direct descendants of
              > Black
              >
              > > Africans (they share a common black ancestor), and that development
              > was
              >
              > > relatively recent. The many tribes of plains Indians were descendants
              >
              > > of the Chinese. So, what is a race? It is a mistaken idea.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > In any case, Louise is stuck in the 'idee fixe' that you mention. She
              >
              > > cannot let it go. She is utterly obsessed with it, and imagines all
              >
              > > kinds of conspiracies against her because of it. But I cannot allow
              >
              > > this list to have that tendency represented without objection. It is
              >
              > > that simple.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Wil
              >
              > > Wil, Science catalogs many racial traits. Sickle cell and the myriad
              > of genetic problems that confront Jews come to mind. Why does this new
              > virus kill Mexicans and only mildly sicken whites. In many ways a
              > northern European genome is dramatically different from a Spanish
              > indian genome. It seems a virus has found a way to more completely
              > overcome the defense mechanisms of some of our species and not others.
              > It is not wrong to see and discuss the differences that obviously exist
              > in Homo Sapiens. I do not want to see our Mexican neighbors die off
              > but early reports seem to suggest this new virus exploits differences
              > we may not have even known about.
              >
              > I can see your refusal to go down what you see as the slippery slope
              > of racism but does your stance on the matter include a bow to
              > correctness that denies needed examinations? I do not want to refuse to
              > examine facts because they are not the proper facts to some of those
              > who hold certain political philosophies. I usually take science to be
              > more important than political philosophy. I would not shy away from
              > trying to find out why a Hispanic reacts more seriously to viral
              > infection than others. To avoid such an investigation because it could
              > be labeled racist is criminal, a race crime and a crime against
              > humanity in general.
              >
              > I am not accusing you of such but can see how a no race attitude can
              > cause great disruptions in possible advances of general knowledge.
              > H1N1 is a real and dangerous racist. It may kill all or only part of
              > our race. Fear of racism should not constrain all efforts to stop the
              > dying. Bill
              >
              > >
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              >
              > > From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@>
              >
              > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 1:05 pm
              >
              > > Subject: [existlist] Drawing the line
              >
              > >
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have
              >
              > > fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes
              >
              > > nowhere.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Recently I saw a documentary on a little known hominid that seems
              > to
              >
              > > have lived much more temporally close to us than evolution placed his
              >
              > > contemporaries. The genome should have gone extinct better than a
              >
              > > million years ago but lived and died out only one hundred thousand
              >
              > > years ago. The hominid was a midget with a brain size approximating
              >
              > > that of Leeky`s "Lucy" . It used tools, stone tools and lived in
              >
              > > Micronesia with pygmy elephants. Should we consider this ape man
              > human?
              >
              > > He may have devolved from cro magnons .
              >
              > >
              >
              > > You see I think it easier to talk of an extinct hominid as there is
              > no
              >
              > > racial component to stumble over. Was his existence an evolution or
              > a
              >
              > > devolution. This fellow was only four feet tall but lived a life much
              >
              > > like our stone age ancestors. Human, or not human? This guy is a real
              >
              > > curve ball that could be called an extinct race. The show suggests
              > many
              >
              > > dead end humanoids have come and gone and the process is still
              > active.
              >
              > > That is where the controversy comes in . Evolutionary biology
              > suggests
              >
              > > this is a king of the hill contest with modern man standing on top
              > and
              >
              > > subtly or not so subtly removing the competition.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > I think Wil would say we do not have that right while Louise might
              > say
              >
              > > we cannot help what evolution moves us toward.
              >
              > >
              >
              > > Framing the argument in other than racial terms might defuse the
              >
              > > controversy long enough to examine the process without rancor. If
              > that
              >
              > > little hominid were alive today would we be forced to provide
              >
              > > alternative schools to make sure he passes his ACT test? Do we
              > need
              >
              > > provide miniature toilets so he can urinate with comfort? If he does
              >
              > > not like clothes can he run about naked? I would suggest we have
              >
              > > several evolving and devolving sub species as we speak but we do not
              >
              > > know who will remain as king of the hill. If I label them I risk
              >
              > > racism so I refuse to affix the emblem but that does not stop the
              >
              > > process. I do not think we wish to stop the process. Bill
              >
              > >
              >
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              Tom, Actually, Mexico has a great many ethnicities, many by region. Most are what are called Mestizos, who are Euro-Indian, but tend to resemble Europeans in
              Message 6 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
                Tom,

                Actually, Mexico has a great many ethnicities, many by region. Most are
                what are called Mestizos, who are Euro-Indian, but tend to resemble
                Europeans in stature. The "indígenas" are more like the description you
                are giving. But a good chunk of the population, maybe as much as
                quarter, especially in urban areas, are what one would consider
                Castilian or in any case "White". There is also a large amount of
                Mediterranean Arabs (Lebanese, mainly) and even Persians (Iranians).
                Salma Hayek is an example of the latter.

                Wil



                -----Original Message-----

                From: devogney <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>

                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 4:50 pm

                Subject: [existlist] Re: Drawing the line































































                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:







                Wil,







                As I understand it, Mexicans are a mixture of Spanish and mid American
                indian.The Spanish soldiers mated with the natives of Mexico and the
                mixture is what we call Mexican. I presume that the indians who
                populated Mexico must have been much smaller than the indians of north
                America,because north American are usually tall and=2
                0Mexicans are
                usually short, and Spanish are run of the mill Europeans as far as
                heigth.







                I have heard the theory that all humans originated in Africa, and that
                adaptation to colder climates over time produced the Caucasian and
                Oriental races. If the north American indians are the descendents of
                Chinese, the fact that north American are usually tall, and Chinese are
                usually short is a good example of adaptation to surroundings.China has
                been very highly populated for many years; whereas north America was
                scarcely populated with plenty of game and plant life to suppport a
                larger human being. I think race is a good example of evolutionary
                adapation. As for cases of sicle cell anemia being more prevanent among
                Mediteranian Jews, Arabs and Spanish, there is little doubt that both
                abilities and disabilities are often distributed with greater frequency
                among certain gene poools.Among races as well as species, there are
                various advantages and disadvantages. A cat lacks the olfactory
                abilities of a dog, but a cat can climb, and a homing pidgeon has a
                greater sense of direction. I'd suspect that if and when genetic
                engineering arrives, a superman might be created using DNA mental
                components from Jewish and Orientals,and various physical abilities
                from blacks etc. I agree very much with Bill that > {I can see your
                refusal to go down what you see as the slippery slope



                > of r
                acism but does your stance on the matter include a bow to



                > correctness that denies needed examinations? I do not want to refuse
                to



                > examine facts because they are not the proper facts to some of
                those



                > who hold certain political philosophies. I usually take science to be



                > more important than political philosophy. I would not shy away from



                > trying to find out why a Hispanic reacts more seriously to viral



                > infection than others. To avoid such an investigation because it
                could



                > be labeled racist is criminal, a race crime and a crime against



                > humanity in general.]Bill







                I think it might have been a Pope or somebody who said of the first
                telescope that he wouldnt look in it etc. Of course, if it was the Pope
                or someone in power, that wouldnt necesarily mean he wasa stupid as
                much as he might have been smart enough to see the danger to his own
                power from a new view of the universe becoming prevalent among the
                masses.







                Tom







                >



                > Are Mexicans a different race? Mexico City has a high percentage of



                > Castillian-Spanish, which is European. Chaipas is mostly Indian, and



                > there are no virus outbreaks there as yet. Racially superior? There
                is



                > cycle=2
                0cell anemia in Mediterranean Jews and Arabs and Southern
                French.



                > Are they race mongrels? No, the whole matter becomes muddled when
                race



                > is brought into it. Family resemblances are just that.



                >



                > Besides, L. is into some mystical notion of race, like those Germans



                > and French who thought the Grail was white superiority and the rest
                of



                > it. I will not have it. Not any of it, especially in an
                Existentialism



                > group. What does any of this crap have to do with that?



                >



                > We spend too much time on these things. I do not care about Louise's



                > paranoid delusions, or her protests in behalf of mental illness or
                her



                > mystical Britishness or any of it. She should go elsewhere if she



                > cannot adhere to the group theme. Period.



                >



                > Wil



                >



                > -----Original Message-----



                > From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>



                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com



                > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 2:32 pm



                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Drawing the line



                >



                >



                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:



                >



                > >



                >



                > > Bill,



                >



                > >



                >




                > > Contemporary science does not give the concept of "race" any
                veracity



                >



                > > at all. Humanity is so plastic, we have no idea what people looked



                > like



                >



                > > 20,000 years ago. Chinese and Japanese are direct descendants of



                > Black



                >



                > > Africans (they share a common black ancestor), and that development



                > was



                >



                > > relatively recent. The many tribes of plains Indians were
                descendants



                >



                > > of the Chinese. So, what is a race? It is a mistaken idea.



                >



                > >



                >



                > > In any case, Louise is stuck in the 'idee fixe' that you mention.
                She



                >



                > > cannot let it go. She is utterly obsessed with it, and imagines all



                >



                > > kinds of conspiracies against her because of it. But I cannot allow



                >



                > > this list to have that tendency represented without objection. It is



                >



                > > that simple.



                >



                > >



                >



                > > Wil



                >



                > > Wil, Science catalogs many racial traits. Sickle cell and the
                myriad



                > of genetic problems that confront Jews come to mind. Why does this
                new0D



                > virus kill Mexicans and only mildly sicken whites. In many ways a



                > northern European genome is dramatically different from a Spanish



                > indian genome. It seems a virus has found a way to more completely



                > overcome the defense mechanisms of some of our species and not
                others.



                > It is not wrong to see and discuss the differences that obviously
                exist



                > in Homo Sapiens. I do not want to see our Mexican neighbors die off



                > but early reports seem to suggest this new virus exploits
                differences



                > we may not have even known about.



                >



                > I can see your refusal to go down what you see as the slippery
                slope



                > of racism but does your stance on the matter include a bow to



                > correctness that denies needed examinations? I do not want to refuse
                to



                > examine facts because they are not the proper facts to some of
                those



                > who hold certain political philosophies. I usually take science to be



                > more important than political philosophy. I would not shy away from



                > trying to find out why a Hispanic reacts more seriously to viral



                > infection than others. To avoid such an investigation because it
                could



                > be labeled racist is criminal, a race crime and a
                crime against



                > humanity in general.



                >



                > I am not accusing you of such but can see how a no race attitude
                can



                > cause great disruptions in possible advances of general knowledge.



                > H1N1 is a real and dangerous racist. It may kill all or only part of



                > our race. Fear of racism should not constrain all efforts to stop the



                > dying. Bill



                >



                > >



                >



                > > -----Original Message-----



                >



                > > From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@>



                >



                > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com



                >



                > > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 1:05 pm



                >



                > > Subject: [existlist] Drawing the line



                >



                > >



                >



                > >



                >



                > > Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have



                >



                > > fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes



                >



                > > nowhere.



                >



                > >



                >



                > > Recently I saw a documentary on a little known hominid that seems



                > to



                >



                > > have lived much more temporally close to us than evolution placed
                his



                >

                =0
                D

                > > contemporaries. The genome should have gone extinct better than a



                >



                > > million years ago but lived and died out only one hundred thousand



                >



                > > years ago. The hominid was a midget with a brain size approximating



                >



                > > that of Leeky`s "Lucy" . It used tools, stone tools and lived in



                >



                > > Micronesia with pygmy elephants. Should we consider this ape man



                > human?



                >



                > > He may have devolved from cro magnons .



                >



                > >



                >



                > > You see I think it easier to talk of an extinct hominid as there
                is



                > no



                >



                > > racial component to stumble over. Was his existence an evolution
                or



                > a



                >



                > > devolution. This fellow was only four feet tall but lived a life
                much



                >



                > > like our stone age ancestors. Human, or not human? This guy is a
                real



                >



                > > curve ball that could be called an extinct race. The show suggests



                > many



                >



                > > dead end humanoids have come and gone and the process is still



                > active.



                >



                > > That is where the controversy comes in . Evol
                utionary biology



                > suggests



                >



                > > this is a king of the hill contest with modern man standing on top



                > and



                >



                > > subtly or not so subtly removing the competition.



                >



                > >



                >



                > > I think Wil would say we do not have that right while Louise
                might



                > say



                >



                > > we cannot help what evolution moves us toward.



                >



                > >



                >



                > > Framing the argument in other than racial terms might defuse the



                >



                > > controversy long enough to examine the process without rancor. If



                > that



                >



                > > little hominid were alive today would we be forced to provide



                >



                > > alternative schools to make sure he passes his ACT test? Do we



                > need



                >



                > > provide miniature toilets so he can urinate with comfort? If he does



                >



                > > not like clothes can he run about naked? I would suggest we have



                >



                > > several evolving and devolving sub species as we speak but we do not



                >



                > > know who will remain as king of the hill. If I label them I risk



                >

                0D

                > > racism so I refuse to affix the emblem but that does not stop the



                >



                > > process. I do not think we wish to stop the process. Bill



                >



                > >



                >

























                0D
              • mary.josie59
                Bill, your comments seem very reasonable to me. The intent and application of scientific research is always arguable, but not the facts. I despise the idea of
                Message 7 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
                  Bill, your comments seem very reasonable to me. The intent and application of scientific research is always arguable, but not the facts. I despise the idea of racial purity and supremacy, but it's a natural visceral reaction to be afraid of or attracted to differences.

                  Wil, to declare that at the level of the genome there are no differences is the same as saying both the momentum and position of an entire human being can't be measured. We don't experience life strictly at the subatomic level, though we're subject to its unobservable processes. Human observation recognizes differences and categories. Race breaks down into ethnicity, regions and nations, but people should never be objectified, as individuals or groups, at least according to existentialism.

                  Louise, how is the concept of repatriation even testable? To which decade, century, or millennium do we reference the candidates? What about mixed bloods, etc.? If an idea isn't feasible, how can it be right or wrong?

                  Mary
                • louise
                  ... Mary, Firstly, I am having the most extraordinary difficulty communicating my liberal ideas, which must be satisfactorily explained before my own thoughts
                  Message 8 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
                    > Louise, how is the concept of repatriation even testable? To which decade, century, or millennium do we reference the candidates? What about mixed bloods, etc.? If an idea isn't feasible, how can it be right or wrong?
                    >
                    > Mary

                    Mary,

                    Firstly, I am having the most extraordinary difficulty communicating my liberal ideas, which must be satisfactorily explained before my own thoughts about the political concept of repatriation could be at all further elucidated.

                    You know how Cato used to declare at the end of all his speeches, that Carthage must be destroyed? I wonder if I should try a little repetitive propaganda myself, to emphasise what I think, as opposed to what is so frequently attributed to me.

                    This is what I think:

                    RACIAL SUPREMACISM IS A BAD IDEA.

                    THE INFORMED LOVE OF ONE'S OWN RACE IS A GOOD IDEA.

                    Louise
                  • louise
                    ... Wil, Your concern for my alleged tendencies is very touching, but I think you are wrong, and nothing affords me more relief than to let go of any obsessive
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                      >
                      > Bill,
                      >
                      > Contemporary science does not give the concept of "race" any veracity
                      > at all. Humanity is so plastic, we have no idea what people looked like
                      > 20,000 years ago. Chinese and Japanese are direct descendants of Black
                      > Africans (they share a common black ancestor), and that development was
                      > relatively recent. The many tribes of plains Indians were descendants
                      > of the Chinese. So, what is a race? It is a mistaken idea.
                      >
                      > In any case, Louise is stuck in the 'idee fixe' that you mention. She
                      > cannot let it go. She is utterly obsessed with it, and imagines all
                      > kinds of conspiracies against her because of it. But I cannot allow
                      > this list to have that tendency represented without objection. It is
                      > that simple.
                      >
                      > Wil

                      Wil,

                      Your concern for my alleged tendencies is very touching, but I think you are wrong, and nothing affords me more relief than to let go of any obsessive attachment to ideas, of whatever nature. If you confine yourself to reasoned assailings of my arguments, rather than fuss around my health like a mother hen, we may arrive at happier ways to disagree or even to find some common ground.

                      Louise

                      >
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: bhvwd <v.valleywestdental@...>
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 1:05 pm
                      > Subject: [existlist] Drawing the line
                      >
                      >
                      > Louise, Wil,et all.Reading your most recent posts you seem to have
                      > fallen into a pit of controversy you have entered before. It goes
                      > nowhere.
                      >
                      > Recently I saw a documentary on a little known hominid that seems to
                      > have lived much more temporally close to us than evolution placed his
                      > contemporaries. The genome should have gone extinct better than a
                      > million years ago but lived and died out only one hundred thousand
                      > years ago. The hominid was a midget with a brain size approximating
                      > that of Leeky`s "Lucy" . It used tools, stone tools and lived in
                      > Micronesia with pygmy elephants. Should we consider this ape man human?
                      > He may have devolved from cro magnons .
                      >
                      > You see I think it easier to talk of an extinct hominid as there is no
                      > racial component to stumble over. Was his existence an evolution or a
                      > devolution. This fellow was only four feet tall but lived a life much
                      > like our stone age ancestors. Human, or not human? This guy is a real
                      > curve ball that could be called an extinct race. The show suggests many
                      > dead end humanoids have come and gone and the process is still active.
                      > That is where the controversy comes in . Evolutionary biology suggests
                      > this is a king of the hill contest with modern man standing on top and
                      > subtly or not so subtly removing the competition.
                      >
                      > I think Wil would say we do not have that right while Louise might say
                      > we cannot help what evolution moves us toward.
                      >
                      > Framing the argument in other than racial terms might defuse the
                      > controversy long enough to examine the process without rancor. If that
                      > little hominid were alive today would we be forced to provide
                      > alternative schools to make sure he passes his ACT test? Do we need
                      > provide miniature toilets so he can urinate with comfort? If he does
                      > not like clothes can he run about naked? I would suggest we have
                      > several evolving and devolving sub species as we speak but we do not
                      > know who will remain as king of the hill. If I label them I risk
                      > racism so I refuse to affix the emblem but that does not stop the
                      > process. I do not think we wish to stop the process. Bill
                      >
                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                      Mary: Race breaks down into ethnicity, regions and nations, but people should never be objectified, as individuals or groups, at least according to
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 29, 2009
                        Mary: "Race breaks down into ethnicity, regions and nations, but people
                        should never be objectified, as individuals or groups, at least
                        according to existentialism."

                        Response: Race is a term that can mean as much or little as one wants.
                        We can speak of 'our race' in terms of our humanity as a whole, or as
                        any kind of subdivision. However, when used in conjunction with "white"
                        or "European", etc., it has a very specific, pejorative connotation,
                        which I hardly have to define. Like "torture" or "rape", et al., I
                        cannot tolerate any discussion that seeks to normalize such an
                        horrendous idea as racism, no matter the rationalization or
                        adumbration. I am sure that most persons with a clear head and
                        objective mind will quite agree with this.

                        This doesn't mean that I am a member of the (so-called) liberal thought
                        police or any thing of the sort. This also does not mean that I am a
                        cultural relativist. I privilege The West, and I have made that
                        position combatively clear on many occasions here. I agree with Hegel
                        that Modernity can only have realized itself by means of the Western
                        Idea, by means of the revolutionary and rational process through, and
                        ultimately beyond, Christianity, and hence forth into the world at
                        large. But this is not blood. It is rational comportment,
                        socio-historical experience and culture.

                        Wil



                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: mary.josie59 <mary.josie59@...>
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 5:48 pm
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: Drawing the line


                        Bill, your comments seem very reasonable to me. The intent and
                        application of scientific research is always arguable, but not the
                        facts. I despise the idea of racial purity and supremacy, but it's a
                        natural visceral reaction to be afraid of or attracted to differences.



                        Wil, to declare that at the level of the genome there are no
                        differences is the same as saying both the momentum and position of an
                        entire human being can't be measured. We don't experience life strictly
                        at the subatomic level, though we're subject to its unobservable
                        processes. Human observation recognizes differences and categories.
                        Race breaks down into ethnicity, regions and nations, but people should
                        never be objectified, as individuals or groups, at least according to
                        existentialism.



                        Louise, how is the concept of repatriation even testable? To which
                        decade, century, or millennium do we reference the candidates? What
                        about mixed bloods, etc.? If an idea isn't feasible, how can it be
                        right or wrong?



                        Mary
                      • tom
                        ... You state Race is a term that can mean as much or little as one wants. We can speak of our race in terms of our humanity as a whole, or as any kind of
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 30, 2009
                          :Wil,
                          You state
                          Race is a term that can mean as much or little as one wants.
                          We can speak of 'our race' in terms of our humanity as a whole, or as
                          any kind of subdivision. However, when used in conjunction with "white"
                          or "European", etc., it has a very specific, pejorative connotation,
                          which I hardly have to define. Like "torture" or "rape", et al., I
                          cannot tolerate any discussion that seeks to normalize such an
                          horrendous idea as racism, no matter the rationalization or
                          adumbration. I am sure that most persons with a clear head and
                          objective mind will quite agree with this.

                          This doesn't mean that I am a member of the (so-called) liberal thought
                          police or any thing of the sort. This also does not mean that I am a
                          cultural relativist. I privilege The West, and I have made that
                          position combatively clear on many occasions here. I agree with Hegel
                          that Modernity can only have realized itself by means of the Western
                          Idea, by means of the revolutionary and rational process through, and
                          ultimately beyond, Christianity, and hence forth into the world at
                          large. But this is not blood. It is rational comportment,
                          socio-historical experience and culture.

                          Wil

                          I don't necesarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in races with the normalization of racism.Because I recognize the fact that certain intellectual or athletic abilities as well as certain diseases are more predominant among certain races does not necesarily equate to any hatred of a particular race. Strong objections to any pointing out of such differences does tend to make one me think of the objector as a member of the liveral thought police or politically correct.
                          Tom


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                          Tom, You write: I don t necessarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in races with the normalization of racism. Because I recognize the fact that
                          Message 12 of 17 , Apr 30, 2009
                            Tom,

                            You write: "I don't necessarily equate bringing up the fact of
                            differences in races with the normalization of racism. Because I
                            recognize the fact that certain intellectual or athletic abilities as
                            well as certain diseases are more predominant among certain races does
                            not necessarily equate to any hatred of a particular race. Strong
                            objections to any pointing out of such differences does tend to make
                            one me think of the objector as a member of the liberal thought police
                            or politically correct."

                            Response: Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is certainly
                            one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                            corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                            background. First, it is precisely the very talking about "race",
                            especially in the way you have, that normalizes racist ideas. The
                            "hatred" quotient does not matter in this regard at all (e.g., 'some
                            of my best friends are ...'). Secondly, I am at the very least a
                            "liberal", actually to the left of that, and I am proud of it. If
                            calling a bigot a bigot makes me a 'thought policeman' in your eyes, I
                            can live with that.

                            Wil

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 7:26 am
                            Subject: Re:[existlist]Re:Drawing the line


                            I don't necesarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in races
                            with the normalization of racism.Because I recognize the fact that
                            certain intellectual or athletic abilities as well as certain diseases
                            are more predominant among certain races does not necesarily equate to
                            any hatred of a particular race. Strong objections to any pointing out
                            of such differences does tend to make one me think of the objector as a
                            member of the liveral thought police or politically correct.

                            Tom



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • devogney
                            Message 13 of 17 , Apr 30, 2009
                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                              >
                              > Tom,
                              >
                              > You write: "I don't necessarily equate bringing up the fact of
                              > differences in races with the normalization of racism. Because I
                              > recognize the fact that certain intellectual or athletic abilities as
                              > well as certain diseases are more predominant among certain races does
                              > not necessarily equate to any hatred of a particular race. Strong
                              > objections to any pointing out of such differences does tend to make
                              > one me think of the objector as a member of the liberal thought police
                              > or politically correct."
                              >
                              > Response: Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is certainly
                              > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                              > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                              > background. First, it is precisely the very talking about "race",
                              > especially in the way you have, that normalizes racist ideas. The
                              > "hatred" quotient does not matter in this regard at all (e.g., 'some
                              > of my best friends are ...'). Secondly, I am at the very least a
                              > "liberal", actually to the left of that, and I am proud of it. If
                              > calling a bigot a bigot makes me a 'thought policeman' in your eyes, I
                              > can live with that.
                              >
                              > Wil
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
                              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 7:26 am
                              > Subject: Re:[existlist]Re:Drawing the line
                              >
                              >
                              > I don't necesarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in races
                              > with the normalization of racism.Because I recognize the fact that
                              > certain intellectual or athletic abilities as well as certain diseases
                              > are more predominant among certain races does not necesarily equate to
                              > any hatred of a particular race. Strong objections to any pointing out
                              > of such differences does tend to make one me think of the objector as a
                              > member of the liveral thought police or politically correct.
                              >
                              > Tom
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • devogney
                              Message 14 of 17 , Apr 30, 2009
                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                >
                                > Tom,
                                >
                                > You write: "I don't necessarily equate bringing up the fact of
                                > differences in races with the normalization of racism. Because I
                                > recognize the fact that certain intellectual or athletic abilities as
                                > well as certain diseases are more predominant among certain races does
                                > not necessarily equate to any hatred of a particular race. Strong
                                > objections to any pointing out of such differences does tend to make
                                > one me think of the objector as a member of the liberal thought police
                                > or politically correct."
                                >
                                > Response: Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is certainly
                                > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                                > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                                > background. First, it is precisely the very talking about "race",
                                > especially in the way you have, that normalizes racist ideas. The
                                > "hatred" quotient does not matter in this regard at all (e.g., 'some
                                > of my best friends are ...'). Secondly, I am at the very least a
                                > "liberal", actually to the left of that, and I am proud of it. If
                                > calling a bigot a bigot makes me a 'thought policeman' in your eyes, I
                                > can live with that.
                                >
                                > Wil
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 7:26 am
                                > Subject: Re:[existlist]Re:Drawing the line
                                >
                                >
                                > I don't necesarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in races
                                > with the normalization of racism.Because I recognize the fact that
                                > certain intellectual or athletic abilities as well as certain diseases
                                > are more predominant among certain races does not necesarily equate to
                                > any hatred of a particular race. Strong objections to any pointing out
                                > of such differences does tend to make one me think of the objector as a
                                > member of the liveral thought police or politically correct.
                                >
                                > Tom
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • devogney
                                ... . Wil I found the floowing definition of bigot by putting it in search. bigot - Wiktionary bigot (plural bigots) one who is obstinately or intolerantly
                                Message 15 of 17 , Apr 30, 2009
                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Tom,
                                  >
                                  > You write: "I don't necessarily equate bringing up the fact of
                                  > differences in races with the normalization of racism. Because I
                                  > recognize the fact that certain intellectual or athletic abilities as
                                  > well as certain diseases are more predominant among certain races does
                                  > not necessarily equate to any hatred of a particular race. Strong
                                  > objections to any pointing out of such differences does tend to make
                                  > one me think of the objector as a member of the liberal thought police
                                  > or politically correct."
                                  >
                                  > Response: Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is certainly
                                  > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                                  > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                                  > background. First, it is precisely the very talking about "race",
                                  > especially in the way you have, that normalizes racist ideas. The
                                  > "hatred" quotient does not matter in this regard at all (e.g., 'some
                                  > of my best friends are ...'). Secondly, I am at the very least a
                                  > "liberal", actually to the left of that, and I am proud of it. If
                                  > calling a bigot a bigot makes me a 'thought policeman' in your eyes, I
                                  > can live with that.
                                  >
                                  > Wil

                                  .

                                  Wil

                                  I found the floowing definition of bigot by putting it in search.

                                  bigot - Wiktionary
                                  bigot (plural bigots) one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or

                                  Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                                  A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offence to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

                                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry · Cached page
                                  bigot - Definition of bigot at YourDictionary.com
                                  noun. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person; Etymology: Fr < OFr, a term of insult used of ...

                                  www.yourdictionary.com/bigot · Cached page


                                  As to being intolerantly devoted to one's own opinion,there is little doubt that you would be a strong candidate for the number one bigot on the list. I believe I could enjoy hearing the thoughts of a flat earth society advocate, as long as he or she was fairly civil. I have a good friend who was a Bush supporter. Like yourself, I despised Bush and his fascist agenda, but the friend in question is nice person. As to being strongly partial to one's own race, I am a combination of Irish, English, with a bit of French thrown in, but I have stated IQ studies consistently find Jewish and to somewhat less extent Orientals as being the most intelligant[at least within the parameters of the test]. Likewise, any observation of the Olympics in the last 25 years has found those of west African ancestry winning all the shorter runs, and the east Africans winning the longer runs.A few years ago, I and some other friends[I recall there was one black guy there]and after discussing Jewish and Oriental success in schoo, and black success in athletics, I wondered what white guys were leading in. Someone said whites were clearly the leader in producing the most serial killers.There was a movie and casette in the 90s."White men can't jump". I have the cassette somewhere, but never saw the movie. Sure some blacks might hate whites because they as a group are poor jumpers, but I'm sure many more understand that all species, races, and individuals have their strengths and weaknesses.

                                  You said

                                  Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is certainly
                                  > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                                  > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                                  > background.

                                  Political correctness is most predominant among dreaded eggheads with a little academic background in my opinion. As to you being to the left of liberal, I believe civilized people should be able to share divergent opinions. Ironically, John Kenneth Galbriath and Bill Buckley were personal friends.
                                  Tom
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
                                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 7:26 am
                                  > Subject: Re:[existlist]Re:Drawing the line
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I don't necesarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in races
                                  > with the normalization of racism.Because I recognize the fact that
                                  > certain intellectual or athletic abilities as well as certain diseases
                                  > are more predominant among certain races does not necesarily equate to
                                  > any hatred of a particular race. Strong objections to any pointing out
                                  > of such differences does tend to make one me think of the objector as a
                                  > member of the liveral thought police or politically correct.
                                  >
                                  > Tom
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                  Tom, Well, I am sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention. Incidentally, the vast majority of existential writers would be on my side of this issue,
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Apr 30, 2009
                                    Tom,

                                    Well, I am sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.
                                    Incidentally, the vast majority of existential writers would be on my
                                    side of this issue, especially Sartre and Merlou-Ponty. As to my
                                    academic background, it is more than sufficient to stand by what I have
                                    written'

                                    Wil


                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: devogney <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 8:44 am
                                    Subject: [existlist]Re:Drawing the line


                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                    >

                                    > Tom,

                                    >

                                    > You write: "I don't necessarily equate bringing up the fact of

                                    > differences in races with the normalization of racism. Because I

                                    > recognize the fact that certain intellectual or athletic abilities as

                                    > well as certain diseases are more predominant among certain races
                                    does

                                    > not necessarily equate to any hatred of a particular race. Strong

                                    > objections to any pointing out of such differences does tend to make

                                    > one me think of the objector as a member of the liberal thought
                                    police

                                    > or politically correct."

                                    >

                                    > Response: Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is
                                    certainly

                                    > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street

                                    > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic

                                    > background. First, it is precisely the very talking about "race",

                                    > especially in the way20you have, that normalizes racist ideas. The

                                    > "hatred" quotient does not matter in this regard at all (e.g., 'some

                                    > of my best friends are ...'). Secondly, I am at the very least a

                                    > "liberal", actually to the left of that, and I am proud of it. If

                                    > calling a bigot a bigot makes me a 'thought policeman' in your eyes,
                                    I

                                    > can live with that.

                                    >

                                    > Wil



                                    .



                                    Wil



                                    I found the floowing definition of bigot by putting it in search.



                                    bigot - Wiktionary

                                    bigot (plural bigots) one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to
                                    his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to
                                    one's own group, religion, race, or



                                    Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                    A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offence to the
                                    opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and
                                    bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used
                                    as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to
                                    prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or
                                    proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.



                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry · Cached page

                                    bigot - Definition of bigot at YourDictionary.com

                                    noun. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular
                                    creed, opinion, etc. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person; Etymology: Fr
                                    0A< OFr, a term of insult used of ...



                                    www.yourdictionary.com/bigot · Cached page



                                    As to being intolerantly devoted to one's own opinion,there is little
                                    doubt that you would be a strong candidate for the number one bigot on
                                    the list. I believe I could enjoy hearing the thoughts of a flat earth
                                    society advocate, as long as he or she was fairly civil. I have a good
                                    friend who was a Bush supporter. Like yourself, I despised Bush and his
                                    fascist agenda, but the friend in question is nice person. As to being
                                    strongly partial to one's own race, I am a combination of Irish,
                                    English, with a bit of French thrown in, but I have stated IQ studies
                                    consistently find Jewish and to somewhat less extent Orientals as being
                                    the most intelligant[at least within the parameters of the test].
                                    Likewise, any observation of the Olympics in the last 25 years has
                                    found those of west African ancestry winning all the shorter runs, and
                                    the east Africans winning the longer runs.A few years ago, I and some
                                    other friends[I recall there was one black guy there]and after
                                    discussing Jewish and Oriental success in schoo, and black success in
                                    athletics, I wondered what white guys were leading in. Someone said
                                    whites were clearly the leader in producing the most serial
                                    killers.There was a movie and casette in the 90s."White men can't
                                    jump". I have the cassette somewhere, but never saw the movie. Sure
                                    some blacks mig
                                    ht hate whites because they as a group are poor jumpers,
                                    but I'm sure many more understand that all species, races, and
                                    individuals have their strengths and weaknesses.



                                    You said



                                    Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is certainly

                                    > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street

                                    > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic

                                    > background.



                                    Political correctness is most predominant among dreaded eggheads with a
                                    little academic background in my opinion. As to you being to the left
                                    of liberal, I believe civilized people should be able to share
                                    divergent opinions. Ironically, John Kenneth Galbriath and Bill Buckley
                                    were personal friends.

                                    Tom

                                    >

                                    > -----Original Message-----

                                    > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>

                                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                    > Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 7:26 am

                                    > Subject: Re:[existlist]Re:Drawing the line

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > I don't necesarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in
                                    races

                                    > with the normalization of racism.Because I recognize the fact that

                                    > certain intellectual or athletic abilities as well as certain
                                    diseases

                                    > are more predominant among certain races does not necesarily equate
                                    to

                                    > any hatred of a particular race. Strong objections to any pointing
                                    out

                                    > of such differences does tend to make one me think of the objector as
                                    a

                                    >
                                    member of the liveral thought police or politically correct.

                                    >

                                    > Tom

                                    >

                                    >

                                    >

                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                    >
                                  • devogney
                                    ... I wasn t doubting your academic achievements,but your statement that ... Although I believe statistics show some racial groups or one of the two sexes
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Apr 30, 2009
                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                      >Wil,

                                      I wasn't doubting your academic achievements,but your statement that
                                      >
                                      > > " This is certainly one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                                      >
                                      > > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                                      >
                                      > > background"implied to me that you were taking the position of the street corner wisdom. I understand now I misinterpreted you. The term political correctness has often been used to describe positions that often are associated with political agendas by people in power at universities. A few years ago the president of Harvard was forced to resign because he suggested that women as a group might have less aptitudes and interest in science than men as a group. The feminists were accusing the scientific community[mostly male] of providing an atmosphere that was less appealing to females, and thus resulting in less women becoming scientists. I heard a guy on the radio suggesting humorously that the same could be said of the educational system from kindegarden thru high school, and a case made that since the majority of elementary and high school teachers are female,that the fact that as a group boys have much higher drop out rates and less success in getting from grade 1 thru 12 could be attributed to the teachers[mostly female]not providing an atmosphere appealing to the males.

                                      Although I believe statistics show some racial groups or one of the two sexes showing a greater number of success in certain areas, there is and always have been individuals who were among the best in their field, although as a group their race or sex as a group had a smaller number of high achievers in such areas. Even though as a group women have shown less aptitude for science, Madame Curie certainly stands among the great. George Washington Carver was certainly a great scientific genius, as well as a very good human being. As a group Jews have not had a high number of the top athletes, but Sandy Koufax was one of the greatest pitchers who ever lived.I believe whither we are discussing individuals or groups,it is desirable to have appreciation for their abilities, and compassion for their problems.
                                      Tom





                                      > Tom,
                                      >
                                      > Well, I am sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.
                                      > Incidentally, the vast majority of existential writers would be on my
                                      > side of this issue, especially Sartre and Merlou-Ponty. As to my
                                      > academic background, it is more than sufficient to stand by what I have
                                      > written'
                                      >
                                      > Wil
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      > From: devogney <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
                                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      > Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 8:44 am
                                      > Subject: [existlist]Re:Drawing the line
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Tom,
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > You write: "I don't necessarily equate bringing up the fact of
                                      >
                                      > > differences in races with the normalization of racism. Because I
                                      >
                                      > > recognize the fact that certain intellectual or athletic abilities as
                                      >
                                      > > well as certain diseases are more predominant among certain races
                                      > does
                                      >
                                      > > not necessarily equate to any hatred of a particular race. Strong
                                      >
                                      > > objections to any pointing out of such differences does tend to make
                                      >
                                      > > one me think of the objector as a member of the liberal thought
                                      > police
                                      >
                                      > > or politically correct."
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Response: Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is
                                      > certainly
                                      >
                                      > > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                                      >
                                      > > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                                      >
                                      > > background. First, it is precisely the very talking about "race",
                                      >
                                      > > especially in the way20you have, that normalizes racist ideas. The
                                      >
                                      > > "hatred" quotient does not matter in this regard at all (e.g., 'some
                                      >
                                      > > of my best friends are ...'). Secondly, I am at the very least a
                                      >
                                      > > "liberal", actually to the left of that, and I am proud of it. If
                                      >
                                      > > calling a bigot a bigot makes me a 'thought policeman' in your eyes,
                                      > I
                                      >
                                      > > can live with that.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Wil
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > .
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Wil
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > I found the floowing definition of bigot by putting it in search.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > bigot - Wiktionary
                                      >
                                      > bigot (plural bigots) one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to
                                      > his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to
                                      > one's own group, religion, race, or
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                                      >
                                      > A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offence to the
                                      > opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and
                                      > bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used
                                      > as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to
                                      > prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or
                                      > proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry · Cached page
                                      >
                                      > bigot - Definition of bigot at YourDictionary.com
                                      >
                                      > noun. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular
                                      > creed, opinion, etc. a narrow-minded, prejudiced person; Etymology: Fr
                                      > 0A< OFr, a term of insult used of ...
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > www.yourdictionary.com/bigot · Cached page
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > As to being intolerantly devoted to one's own opinion,there is little
                                      > doubt that you would be a strong candidate for the number one bigot on
                                      > the list. I believe I could enjoy hearing the thoughts of a flat earth
                                      > society advocate, as long as he or she was fairly civil. I have a good
                                      > friend who was a Bush supporter. Like yourself, I despised Bush and his
                                      > fascist agenda, but the friend in question is nice person. As to being
                                      > strongly partial to one's own race, I am a combination of Irish,
                                      > English, with a bit of French thrown in, but I have stated IQ studies
                                      > consistently find Jewish and to somewhat less extent Orientals as being
                                      > the most intelligant[at least within the parameters of the test].
                                      > Likewise, any observation of the Olympics in the last 25 years has
                                      > found those of west African ancestry winning all the shorter runs, and
                                      > the east Africans winning the longer runs.A few years ago, I and some
                                      > other friends[I recall there was one black guy there]and after
                                      > discussing Jewish and Oriental success in schoo, and black success in
                                      > athletics, I wondered what white guys were leading in. Someone said
                                      > whites were clearly the leader in producing the most serial
                                      > killers.There was a movie and casette in the 90s."White men can't
                                      > jump". I have the cassette somewhere, but never saw the movie. Sure
                                      > some blacks mig
                                      > ht hate whites because they as a group are poor jumpers,
                                      > but I'm sure many more understand that all species, races, and
                                      > individuals have their strengths and weaknesses.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > You said
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Well, I think you are wrong on all fronts. This is certainly
                                      >
                                      > > one of those issues that seems to divide between those with street
                                      >
                                      > > corner wisdom and those dreaded eggheads with a little academic
                                      >
                                      > > background.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Political correctness is most predominant among dreaded eggheads with a
                                      > little academic background in my opinion. As to you being to the left
                                      > of liberal, I believe civilized people should be able to share
                                      > divergent opinions. Ironically, John Kenneth Galbriath and Bill Buckley
                                      > were personal friends.
                                      >
                                      > Tom
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > -----Original Message-----
                                      >
                                      > > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@>
                                      >
                                      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      >
                                      > > Sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 7:26 am
                                      >
                                      > > Subject: Re:[existlist]Re:Drawing the line
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > I don't necesarily equate bringing up the fact of differences in
                                      > races
                                      >
                                      > > with the normalization of racism.Because I recognize the fact that
                                      >
                                      > > certain intellectual or athletic abilities as well as certain
                                      > diseases
                                      >
                                      > > are more predominant among certain races does not necesarily equate
                                      > to
                                      >
                                      > > any hatred of a particular race. Strong objections to any pointing
                                      > out
                                      >
                                      > > of such differences does tend to make one me think of the objector as
                                      > a
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > member of the liveral thought police or politically correct.
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > Tom
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.