What type of Capitalist / Socialist are you?

[Lozzer]

As I said, we didn't merge together as Multi-regional model would suggest. We had a shag here and there, but for the most part, we emigrated from Africa and replaced other 'human' populations throughout Europe

We have about as much Neanderthal ancestry as there is difference between the DNA of humans and chimps, or between males and females. That's a very substantial amount of interbreeding.

If you want to argue that we're not different races, that's a bad way to make the argument. A better argument would be to admit there was significant interbreeding - it might well have been complete mixing, if neanderthals were less than 5% of the human population before the mixing, as seems likely - but to argue that most of our DNA was shared with neanderthals in the first place, so the mixing didn't introduce many differences.

So you're saying whites are superior to everyone else?

Wow, what a leap into racism!

I challenge you to explain how anything in my post could be taken to mean that.

Your racism

[Warren Dew]

Your racism

To the contrary, you were the one who brought up racial superiority, Lozzer. I guess your post is just living up to your avatar.

[Drewish]

Certain Africans are superior jumpers, but statistical data has shown that blacks are more likely to get hit by cars at night (dark skin, not always an asset). Then again, white people are more prone to get skin cancer. I do like the variety in hair and eye color though. Some Asians (the oriental kind) have that extra fat layer under their skin so they have fewer wrinkles and also tend to be less hairy (which seems to be considered attractive right now). Of course they also tend to be short and lactose intolerant. Is anybody bothered by this? Is it racist to point our stuff like this? I don't think people should be or that it is. Perhaps this has become a whole new topic.

[Lozzer]

[quote="andrewclunn"]Certain Africans are superior jumpers, but statistical data has shown that blacks are more likely to get hit by cars at night (dark skin, not always an asset). Then again, white people are more prone to get skin cancer. I do like the variety in hair and eye color though. Some Asians (the oriental kind) have that extra fat layer under their skin so they have fewer wrinkles and also tend to be less hairy (which seems to be considered attractive right now). Of course they also tend to be short and lactose intolerant. Is anybody bothered by this? Is it racist to point our stuff like this? I don't think people should be or that it is. Perhaps this has become a whole new topic.[/quote]
And runners, too.

But ethnicity is an irrelevance.

The world's fastest runners and jumper come from one, specific geographical location in Kenya which has a strong tradition of encouraging physical activity, and nurturing future Olympic competitors.

[Drewish]

Um, no it's not irrelevance. This is what I'm hearing:

Genes impacting how people develop?! Ancestry impacting the genes you have? Evolution, genetic mutations, natural selection, and the like all impacting humanity just like any other animal? But, but, but, that offends me! It says that all people are not created equal, that race is a real thing, and that we are not all the same!!! How can that be?!!!

Please tell me this is not your position.

[Lozzer]

Um, no it's not irrelevance. This is what I'm hearing:

Genes impacting how people develop?! Ancestry impacting the genes you have? Evolution, genetic mutations, natural selection, and the like all impacting humanity just like any other animal? But, but, but, that offends me! It says that all people are not created equal, that race is a real thing, and that we are not all the same!!! How can that be?!!!

Please tell me this is not your position.

It isn't, I just have nothing but contempt for people who put things like this on 'racial' reasoning alone.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... nners.html

[Drewish]

Dude, don't quote Slate at me. I'd wipe my ass with that French rag if it came in print form. I'm well aware of the, "IT HAS TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL!!!" bullshit that gets pushed, their flimsy anecdotal evidence, and message. So hey, if genetics really plays so little a role, and environmental factors are so strong, then I guess this whole, "People don't get to choose to be gay," thing must be BS too. I mean we haven't identified a gay gene, and some identical twins differ in their sexuality, so the religious right must be right! Gayness is a choice.