Talk:Race

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Since the Great Flood

In my opinion, this part should at least be introduced as "According to Creationists" or "For those who believe in...".Leopeo 16:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Its a conservative fact, see here. Auld Nick 12:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

You mean conservatives wishit were a fact. Which is not the same thing as it being a fact--27102340 12:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I just got blocked by CPAdmin, I guess for removing it (nobody gave me a reason), but then when Speaker made the same edit, it's remained. I don't really understand this place. Brainslug 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Neanderthal

They seem to have forgotten the Neanderthal. As it is currently listed as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis on this website it should be listed as one of the races.--TimS 11:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Only if it says so in the Bible. Auld Nick 11:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Was this lifted from a nineteenth century textbook?

Good Freaking God. Newsflash: Asians are not "yellow." Native Americans are not "Red." Stupidpedia strikes again!--27102340 12:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

If this article is going to mention what science once thought about races, then at least get it right. The original physical anthropologists that developed the biological race model had only three races: Caucasians, Mongloids, and Negroids.Prof0705 12:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Whaaa...you mean the scientists, to whom we all genuflect before as barers and guardians of truth and knowledge, have been wrong? Wow. And those scientific facts were once used to promote and justify racism and genocide? My word. RobS 13:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh my God!!Scientists actually make mistakes like every other person on this planet, and if they are proven wrong they actually change their theories?? Wait...Wait...Oh that's right...science is an open system as opposed to a closed system. Duh...Prof0705 13:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

At least we are out of the dark ages, where persecution and genocide was done in the name of Christianity and the Church. Thank heaven. Now we at least have atheists, rationalists, and science to blame for our progressive thinking which results in mass murder. RobS 13:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yah...good thing those white Christian upper-class gentlemen in the 19th century needing some way of justifying racist policies could turn to science to do their dirty work.Prof0705 13:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, isn't science a Bitc*? I mean, instead of living in your cave, following the sheep around, now you have central heat, air, the internet, the internal combustion engine. Dang, science make these Christians so miserable.--27102340 13:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yep. It was science that gave mankind personkind Zyklon B, and the instructions how to use it. RobS 14:11, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What? So science was wrong in the past. Isn't there something in the Bible about the sins of the fathers? How is that relevant to science today? Part of science's strength is that it changes with new discoveries...-Speaker 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

And it was non-scientific politicans that decided to use it. Same as the atom bomb, dynamite, and napalm. So would you also blame the company that makes the gun used to kill someone, or the person that pulled the trigger?Prof0705 14:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Good point.-Speaker 14:15, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My point is that you really sound ignorant villifying science like that. Last time I checked there weren't a whole helluva lot of people with polio or smallpox around anymore. If one day your appendix blows science has made it possible for you to still survive without being bled by leeches. How many peopl are saved by organ transplants every year? Science did that for you. Science in and of itself doesn't kill.Prof0705 14:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right. Science create napalm, VX gas, Sarin gas, etc., and it's "progress"; then when poltical leaders try to stop the spread of this brilliant knowledge, where are they to be found? RobS 14:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... Union of Concerned Scienists that are against nuclear weapons, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and alot of other scientists that are against such things. Prof0705 14:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh really? Where did these groups stand vis a vis allowing Mr. Saddam Hussein to retain classrooms with students obtaining this knowledge, (i.e. Saddams WMD programs). RobS 14:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) There wasn't much they could do about Saddam.

B) The poison gas? You don't exactly have to be a Nobel-Prize winner to make that stuff.

C) Clear example of the powers that be, abusing science and scientists for their own evil purposes. Every new invention will sooner or later be turned into a weapon by ignorant laymen politicians, scientists regret this, but feel it is no reason to stop progress. MiddleMan

You know the list that RobS gave us all have political ties and backing. So is it the scientists or the politicians?--TimS 15:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A) Oh, so they really don't give a rip. So much for the morality of scientists.

B) Precisely the point.

C) See response to A. RobS 15:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that. MiddleMan

If you're so angry at science, RobS, then don't use it anymore, turn off your computer, and stop posting at CP :-/. Otherwise you might just have to accept that the issue's a little more complicated than you'd like to think.-Speaker 16:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

While you're at it: don't wear synthetic clothing, never go to a doctor, don't drive a car, don't use electricity, don't use a cellphone, don't fly on airplanes, don't take the bus, don't eat food that's not from the nature shop, don't read books or newspapers (you're allowed to have a papyrus Bible), don't wear a watch, don't wear glasses, don't take the train, don't use deodorant, shampoo or soap, don't go to the movies, don't take pictures, don't paint your house, don't use paper, don't use anything made out of plastic, don't use a bank account...

Well there's not much you can do without science, it seems... MiddleMan

You all might want to consider taking it down a notch. Any tool for manipulating or understanding the world, be it science or a ball peen hammer, can be misused. We obviously cannot live in this world in any reasonable way without science...the next world, well, a different story. But now, we are here, so we must strive to use all of our tools morally. You shouldn't slam a hammer into someone's head just because it is the right tool for the job. You shouldn't alter science to fit an ideology, just because it is a good tool for the job.JoyousOne 16:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
  • People will find a way to kill each other anyway, they don't need scientists for that.
That does not mean scientists should not be held accountable, nor that they do not have a moral responsibility. Nor that they do not need oversight and direction from poltical policymakers. Nor does it mean when a dangerous regime is using scientists without accountability to the rest of the international community, with the likelihood that scientific knowledge of how to produce WMD is being passed on to unknown persons, that policymakers, (and for that matter, the general public outside the scientific community) does not have the power and responsibility to act in those circumstances.
To put it bluntly, just as the Church has more less been brought in subordination to the State under the so-called "separation of church and state doctrine", from a pure publicy policy standpoint, science is not our master, it is our slave. RobS 17:32, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Right...? Straw man alert. No one's calling on you to worship science. Just recognize which, between science or faith, is better at empirical testing.-Speaker 17:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Mormon church policy

Cut from article:

The Mormon church supported racist policies into the 1960s.

We need to specify what these policies were. The word "racist" is vague. Did they, for example, say blacks are the devil? Or not allow blacks to join? Or allow blacks to join but not to be leaders? Or what? --Ed Poor 16:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Mormom theology held that blacks were inferior based on the unique characteristics of Mormon cosmology, that suggested blacks as the betrayers of Jesus in his stay in the New World. Right?-Speaker 16:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
The question, one would suppose, does Mormon revelation come from God, or for man?
Are you ready to take that whole question on before stating here Mormonism is a fraud? RobS 17:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't matter. Racism from God is just as evil as racism from man.-Speaker 17:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you ready to take that whole question of God being a racist before making insertions here? RobS 17:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This is not a religious debate. It is fact that the Mormon books, as interpreted & effectuated by the Church through the 1960, led to racist policies. Cite? "Under the Banner of Heaven."-Speaker 17:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You made it a religious debate when you trashed Mormans & impugned God. RobS 20:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I admire Mormans, and Mormans that I know acknowledge their history and have learned from it. Hmm..learn from history...what a good idea...JoyousOne 21:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
[This edit doesn't seem to improve the article, and I concur with its removal. Perhaps it belongs in an article on racism instead. HeartOfGold 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes it does. And unless Speaker wishes to take on the whole LDS Church in the LDS entry, I'm not certain we should use it as an example in the Racism entry. What is clear is, this article in its present structure needs to be reevaluated. The intro says "scientifically", notions of "race" are bunk. The legal subsection says the law recognizes bunk, to wit, Affirmative Action laws, or as anybody who holds a drivers license knows. Then the Religion section is simply a hit on Religion because supposedly Religion is the source of racism, yet this claim is made with no foundation, and doesn't belong in this article anyway. The whole thing needs study and discussion. RobS 00:00, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Human evolution

Cut from article:

Since the beginning of mankind, human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. Scientists now believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern humans share approximately 99.9% of their DNA. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.

This implies that human beings have evolved. Is there any scientific evidence for this?

If the point is not Human evolution but just the idea that skin color might change over periods of thousands of years due to natural selection, then say it that way. --Ed Poor 08:30, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

According to Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks:
Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.
Karajou, who is a sysop, has instructed us that the Bible is a reliable historical and scientific document here, consequently the original version should be reinstated.
Since the Great Flood human populations have gone through periods of isolation and intermixing which lead to differences between groups. Scientists believe that these are largely a matter of different statistical frequencies of variations from an agreed-on standard, rather than racial differences as was once thought. Modern humans, the descendants of Noah and his family, share approximately 99.9% of their DNA. Of the .1% that does vary, 85% of the observed variation is unconnected to membership of any particular group of people.
Auld Nick 08:50, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Nonsense. The passage does not cite the Bible in any substantive way.
Genesis does indicate that God separated (confused) the language of the people building the Tower of Babel - but this is an anti-evolution argument. It happened due to supernatural intervention.
There's also some mention of animal breeding in the story of Jacob. Laban tried to trick him, but God blessed Jacob's efforts. Also a "design" argument which opposes evolution. --Ed Poor 09:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
The Bible does not mention race at all, at least not the color aspect from it. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 describes where on earth people had settled at following the Flood. Simon the Cyrenian was instructed to carry the Cross; Phillip encountered an Ethiopian eunuch; Paul was a Jew from Tarsus. The Bible will state where people are from, and there will be a few cultural aspects thrown in, but it says nothing regarding race and color. The way I see it, there's only one race on earth: the human race. Karajou 15:44, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
The passage tells us that Modern humans are the descendants of Noah and his family. The only humans left after the Great Flood. Since we are all descendants of the same family it is no surprise that we are very very similar. What Scientists believe merely confirms that. Auld Nick 10:01, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Culture and law

Cut from article:

In constructing or deconstructing racial barriers, the law makes reference frequently to different kinds of "race." Cultural race is race based on a unique culture. Affirmative action post-Grutter makes appeal to cultural race as a partial justification for affirmative action. Historical race makes references to the shared experiences of a people that have enhanced or degraded their status as community members. Creating an Israeli nation, for example, is a reference to the genocide & discrimination that Jews have endured as a historical race.

This isn't gibberish, but I'm having a hard time understanding it. Please write plainly. --Ed Poor 08:33, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Ethnicity

"Ethnicity" mistakenly redirects here, even though they are two very distinct concepts. "Race" is the grouping together of people based on superficial characteristics (i.e. black, white, asian, and so on). "Ethnicity" refers to grouping based upon shared cultural, historical, or similar heritages. Conflating the two is a very common error of ignorance, so we should not encourage it.--TomMoore 00:51, 6 March 2008 (EST)

It as an error of fatigue; thank you or correcting me. I normally know better. An embarassing mistake to have made. Thanks Tom Moore!-PhoenixWright 01:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Race as a taboo subject today

I came to notice less people in America and western Europe (any free world democracy) don't like the idea of "races" of people, as much they oppose the immoral ideology of "superior" or "inferior" races. Of course, the Nazis too were racists and hated non-Germans/whites around the world. They labeled the Jews as a separate "race" but the actual meaning is a "lower" species of humans, while most present-day anthropologists reject the sociopolitical "race science" that the Jewish people are "racially different" from non-Jewish Caucasians. Also the US census had historically declared Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Pacific Islanders, Irish, Italians and Poles "racially" apart from white Anglo-Saxons (or admittedly used terms like "Nordic" or "Aryan") in the racial/ethnological classification of people in the USA. + Getitstraight 12:06, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Personal tools