You meant that as a joke, right?

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

There is a difference between fact and opinion.

A person with a low I.Q. is considered to be unintelligent. That is a fact. What constitutes a low I.Q. is an opinion.

Calling someone a racist for picking on the Chinese is ridiculous, calling them a bigot is perfectly fine.

@wei

This is called debating and we all have different tactics. If I really didn’t want to debate with you, I wouldn’t bother. so_damn_lame seems to be sensitive, so I’ll leave him out from now on. It’ll just have to be you, me, knight and the other men with balls.

Here’s a word that you guys might think about using that would quash your squabble over race and what not — BIGOTRY.

So, B.O.B, even if one was to concede to all your points in #221 a person can still be called a bigot.

Regardless of reason, it is clear that there is no consensus and great confusion exists in the discipline [biological anthropology] with regards to race:
Allan Goodman. 1995. The Problematics of “Race” in Contemporary Biological Anthropology. In Biological Anthropology: The State of the Science: p.232.

The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science:
Dr. Harold Freeman, Celera Genomics Corp., quoted in the SJ Mercury, “Race not seen as factor in variation of genetic code,” Feb. 20, 2001, G1.

One of the most astonishing features of the contemporary discussion of race is the fact that anthropology, the science that deals with human biological and cultural variation, has managed to be marginalized:
Jonathon Marks (1995) The Race Gallery: The Return of Racial Science (book review) Nature 113:337. If this assertion is indeed true, it may be that anthropological rhetoric plays a role in the alleged neglect.

AND MY FAVORITE

“Genetically Speaking, Race Doesn’t Exist In Humans”
Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences at Washington University, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right qualitative type of variation — it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

Nice video, BTW…they are cute for underage girls

-> biological anthropologists study plants

Say what?

—

There is a reason why I included the same quote twice.

To be precise, the statement of race for AAA is here:

http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/AAA-Statement-on-Race.cfm

It is a thing of “beauty” and a fun read. It seems like they think the human problem of xenophobia is ultimately an Anglo/American originated issue. This is hilarious.

Below is the statement on race of AAPA; which is quite ambiguous and only go as far as to say “pure” races don’t exist. If you are any familiar with how academia in America works, you can sense the tension in the statement; and fully justifies the fustration of the author I quoted.

http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html

The way to racial equality is not to ignore the elephant in the living room, B.O.B.

=)

You are starting to sound like a bro-ken-rec-ord.

biological anthropologists study plants and sociologists study people. From YOUR referenced article:

Some argue that although race is a valid taxonomic concept in other species, it cannot be applied to humans:
^ S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, C D M Royal, G E Bonney, P Furbert-Harris, G M Dunston & C N Rotimi, 2004 “Conceptualizing human variation” in Nature Genetics 36, S17 – S20

Many scientists have argued that race definitions are imprecise, arbitrary, derived from custom, have many exceptions, have many gradations, and that the numbers of races delineated vary according to the culture making the racial distinctions; thus they reject the notion that any definition of race pertaining to humans can have taxonomic rigour and validity:
The above is the official viewpoint of the American Anthropological Association

Anthropologist Frank Livingstone’s conclusion is that, since clines cross racial boundaries, “there are no races, only clines” (Livingstone 1962: 279).

One sure sign that someone is at the end of their ropes is when he begins to act like a grade school kid and start to try to shout down the other side.

Tell me, why is it that you are so sensitive about the shade of people skin that make you behave like the little middle school kids I knew when I was growing up in the Deep South? If you shout me down, does it quiet the little nagging voices inside you? Chances are, it will not. You best seek your solace and your self esteem in some other way.

In case you have missed it, I’ll requote this for you for this particular issue:

“…For the time being at least, the people in “race denial” are in “reality denial” as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.

Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?”

Self-declared victory is the only kind I’ll get from you, since you can’t/won’t admit you’re wrong. (which you are)

That was translated by a Chinese friend from the Mainland. I told him to translate it for a child that has only half a brain. Seems like it worked. =)

@knights
So now every white person in America was here when we had slaves? I’ll go rewrite the history books just for you!!! Most, if not all, countries that exist today are guilty of killing for the land and having slaves.