Oh, neo-Nazis, you too.
Which just proves how far gone he is.
I though you said it was not just skin color.
Which proves that subspecies can't be used for separating modern humans.
He believes Caucasoid is a subspecies and Nordic is a race inside of that subspecies.
Alright - you are telling me that you can't distinguish a 100% Nordic man from a 100% Negro man? Get your eyes checked.
Black Americans are 30% White anywho...
He says that there are no "races' but subspecies and then speaks of the "nordish race"?
I would say the #1 does not really apply to races.
But I am 100% sure that #2 is NOT applicable. Black americans by that definition are NOT a different subspecies than white americans.
He does however admit to harbouring a special aesthetic admiration for the Nordish race.
Here is the definition of subspecies
Members of one subspecies differ morphologically or by different DNA sequences from members of other subspecies of the species. Subspecies are defined in relation to species. It is not possible to understand the concept of a subspecies without first grasping what a species is. In the context of many large living organisms like trees, flowers, birds, fish and humans, a species can be defined as a distinct and recognisable group that satisfies two conditions: 1. Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernible. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored. 2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and sometimes can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.
1. Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernible. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.
2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and sometimes can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.
I would say the #1 does not really apply to races. But I am 100% sure that #2 is NOT applicable. Black americans by that definition are NOT a different subspecies than white americans.
The only way to make sure that races =subspecies by that denition is to ONLY use skin color. But from genetics or other traits it doesn't work.
What makes the definition I gave about race incorrent? Why did you have to use the definition from the racialist website?
Why did I? Because it's accurate.
Just brilliant to use a racialist definition. Basically proves the point.
And here: According to McCulloch his views are not motivated by hate or animosity against anyone but a love of human diversity. He does however admit to harbouring a special aesthetic admiration for the Nordish race.
1 - The fact that the site is ABOUT race is what makes it racialist.
ra·cial·ism (rsh-lzm) n. 1. a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events. b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations. 2. Chiefly British Variant of racism.
What makes the site wrong or factually incorrect?
From a racialist white seperatists website. Brilliant
2 - He wants the White race to SURVIVE - he finds that, through trial and failure, the ONLY way to do this is separation.
race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race. 5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. 6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race. 7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies. 8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes. 9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race. 10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine. -adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind.
What is race? Because I'm still wondering. We've already reached that conclusion that most, if not all, humans populations have differences. But that doesn't classify new speciation. And the debate is whether or not it even classifies racial difference. http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html
What is race? Because I'm still wondering. We've already reached that conclusion that most, if not all, humans populations have differences. But that doesn't classify new speciation. And the debate is whether or not it even classifies racial difference.
Because I'm still wondering. We've already reached that conclusion that most, if not all, humans populations have differences. But that doesn't classify new speciation. And the debate is whether or not it even classifies racial difference.
Quote: from Trendsetta at 8:08 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from Lulu Nobody at 9:07 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Supremacists of nearly all kinds irritate me. Supremacists of ALL kinds irritate me.This.
Quote: from Lulu Nobody at 9:07 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Supremacists of nearly all kinds irritate me. Supremacists of ALL kinds irritate me.
Supremacists of nearly all kinds irritate me.
Supremacists of ALL kinds irritate me.
Your Magister-Supremacist.
Race isn't a skin color - I just wanted you to know that.
What is race?
349 users online 
223437 members 174 active today Advertise Here
349 users online 223437 members 174 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
