If you could be any other race ?

[psychoslice]

I think Indian, from India, I have always had a fascination for these people and their beliefs.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd want to be black, and fly a bag-assed 'fro, at least 15" across, just to piss people off.

[Aractus]

---

Which one ?

Likewise, which would be your last choice ?

I think I'd be a Chinese Asian.

I'd imagine some South American Amazonian tribes don't have much going for them, so they would probably be a last resort.

How many people are afraid to play this racist game ?

---

There's only one human race. The idea that there are different races of humans is well outdated now. It stems back to a time when we actually believed that there were meaningful differentiations between races, which we now know is not the case. There are different ethnicities, different cultures and different people (including indigenous and non-indigenous), different beliefs, different religions, but there's only one human race and we are all a part of it.

[psychoslice]

I"m quite happy to be a white man with an enormous cock, thank you very much.

MMMM, yummy yum.

[ForumMember77]

snip

I think I heard this one before.

The argument goes that;
Within any of the assumed racial categories that exist, the potential gene variety of all the human races can be found and expressed. Thus race doesn't exist/has no taxonomic meaning.

That is to say a black woman can have a white baby and so on, recent example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...other.html

Is this what you mean?

Because I think I remember this being debunked as left-wing political bias trying to infect science.
Whilst it's true that the genetic variety of the entire human species is present, and even expressed, in any of the assumed racial categories.
The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

And differences are not 'skin deep'.

[Anomalocaris]

Predefined race? Who predefined the race?

[ForumMember77]

Predefined race? Who predefined the race?

We didn't establish the term race, well I didn't .
They were predefined for us, or me anyway. Maybe you came up with the idea of race and for you it wasn't predefined.

Perhaps 'assumed races' works better ?

'Within any of the assumed racial categories' ? Better again? English is not my game.

[Aractus]

---

snip

I think I heard this one before.

The argument goes that;
Within any of the assumed racial categories that exist, the potential gene variety of all the human races can be found and expressed. Thus race doesn't exist/has no taxonomic meaning.

That is to say a black woman can have a white baby and so on, recent example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...other.html

Is this what you mean?

Because I think I remember this being debunked as left-wing political bias trying to infect science.
Whilst it's true that the genetic variety of the entire human species is present, and even expressed, in any of the assumed racial categories.
The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

And differences are not 'skin deep'.

---

I don't recall saying anything about skin colour.

What I said is that there is only one human race.

We have this thing called modern science, in it there is a consensus that the conceptualisation of race is meaningless. There are no distinct human races, all human beings belong to the same race, end of story.

[psychoslice]

---

I think I heard this one before.

The argument goes that;
Within any of the assumed racial categories that exist, the potential gene variety of all the human races can be found and expressed. Thus race doesn't exist/has no taxonomic meaning.

That is to say a black woman can have a white baby and so on, recent example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...other.html

Is this what you mean?

Because I think I remember this being debunked as left-wing political bias trying to infect science.
Whilst it's true that the genetic variety of the entire human species is present, and even expressed, in any of the assumed racial categories.
The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

And differences are not 'skin deep'.

---

I don't recall saying anything about skin colour.

What I said is that there is only one human race.

We have this thing called modern science, in it there is a consensus that the conceptualisation of race is meaningless. There are no distinct human races, all human beings belong to the same race, end of story.

I never thought of it like that before, very interesting.

[ForumMember77]

---

I think I heard this one before.

The argument goes that;
Within any of the assumed racial categories that exist, the potential gene variety of all the human races can be found and expressed. Thus race doesn't exist/has no taxonomic meaning.

That is to say a black woman can have a white baby and so on, recent example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...other.html

Is this what you mean?

Because I think I remember this being debunked as left-wing political bias trying to infect science.
Whilst it's true that the genetic variety of the entire human species is present, and even expressed, in any of the assumed racial categories.
The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

And differences are not 'skin deep'.

---

I don't recall saying anything about skin colour.

What I said is that there is only one human race.

We have this thing called modern science, in it there is a consensus that the conceptualisation of race is meaningless. There are no distinct human races, all human beings belong to the same race, end of story.

And I just disagreed and told you why, to which you responded with 'more people agree with me therefore I'm right'.

Feel like addressing what I said ?

Because I am curious.

---

---

I think I heard this one before.

The argument goes that;
Within any of the assumed racial categories that exist, the potential gene variety of all the human races can be found and expressed. Thus race doesn't exist/has no taxonomic meaning.

That is to say a black woman can have a white baby and so on, recent example; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...other.html

Is this what you mean?

Because I think I remember this being debunked as left-wing political bias trying to infect science.
Whilst it's true that the genetic variety of the entire human species is present, and even expressed, in any of the assumed racial categories.
The prevalence of said gene expression is correlated within groups, that we call races.

And differences are not 'skin deep'.

---

I don't recall saying anything about skin colour.

What I said is that there is only one human race.

We have this thing called modern science, in it there is a consensus that the conceptualisation of race is meaningless. There are no distinct human races, all human beings belong to the same race, end of story.

And I just disagreed and told you why, to which you responded with 'more people agree with me therefore I'm right'.

Feel like addressing what I said ?

Because I am curious. There couldn't be that much of a consensus, because what I posted was an almost word for word plagarization of what Dawkins wrote to this assertion when I looked up his response to the claim race doesn't exist. Or that there's only 1.