What do you hate the most?

[wakeman]

Ounce, I got the same kind of trouble with a kid ot twelve years old. I threatened the kid to punch his nose. Of course, he replied that he would call the cops. I answered that yes I would get trouble with the cops and I would probably get a fine of 100$, but he would have a broken nose and would suffer for more then 100$. He realized it could be true and stopped.

W.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Then we sat down on these seats, and one kid behind us (10-14) said (en francais): Oh, I reserved that seat (my gf's) for my sister. That was like two minutes after she sat down. She said "... No." and we went back to our conversation.

To my surprise, the kid started bonucing a ball on her backrest... It gets harder and harder. I was thinking "what's wrong with this kid?

Was that kid black by any chance?

 

[eastender]

Quoting out of Context

From the September 25th 2006 show of 'Tout le monde en parle':

Guy A. Lepage : Vous avez dit, et je vous cite : « Les Noirs vivant en Amérique étaient le résultat d'un processus de sélection artificielle, et par conséquent ils ont un léger désavantage sur le plan intellectuel. »

Docteur Mailloux : Oui, c'est vrai (...) il y a eu des études aussi, qui n'ont pas été publiées, qui m'ont été remises par l'Université de Montréal.

Dan Bigras : Quelles études ? Quels auteurs ?

Docteur Mailloux : Des études américaines, je ne les sais pas par coeur, mais je les ai dans mon sac, qui ont été faites sur des groupes. Et effectivement, ça a donné que le quotient intellectuel moyen des Noirs et des Amérindiens est nettement inférieur à 100. Si c'est vrai ce que j'avance, il faut en tenir compte. Si c'est faux, c'est faux.

At least Doc Mailloux allowed for the possibility that he was speaking 'merde'.

t76

Not a fan of Doc Mailloux but the exchange above is an excellent example of how once opinions are taken out of context then everything falls apart and things just get further misrepresented.

Guy A Lepage refers to an "Artificial Process" without explanation. Explanation when black slaves were brought to the USA brawn was the criteria hence the disadvantage alluded to.

Doc Mailloux admits to the truthfulness of the generalization but it is not clear
if he is agreeing simply with the truthfulness of the "Artificial Process" or the various derivative studies and conclusions.

Guy Bigras asks.What studies? Who were the authors? Poorly phrased questions as they allow too much wiggle room.

Doc Mailloux responds by taking advantage of the wiggle room by simply answering American studies, not citing specific studies or individual authors of studies, concluding if what he advocates is true then the "Artificial Process"
position has to be considered, if its false than it is false.

Note - title does not refer to the poster but to the three people in the interview.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Depends if out of context means not posting the whole transcript and the rest of his even more sensationalist racist comments.

t76

J'ai plus ou moins suivi la saga Mailloux mais je sais pertinemment que c'est une thématique qu'il avait développée à quelques reprises avant que ce scandale médiatique n'éclate.

La question de savoir à quels auteurs et à quelles études Mailloux faisait référence semblait hâtive dans le strict contexte de la discussion qui se déroulait ce soir-là. En contrepartie, il n'est pas exclu que Bigras, en posant la question, ait eu en tête certains commentaires que Mailloux avait faits au préalable, auquel cas, la validité de la question demanderait à être réexaminée.

 

[eastender]

Clarification

Depends if out of context means not posting the whole transcript and the rest of his even more sensationalist racist comments.

t76

The two words in my post "exchange above" clearly limited my comments to the posted segment. If I felt that the whole transcript should have been posted I would have so indicated.

 

[John_Cage]

Was that kid black by any chance?

Actually, no... It was a Quebecois kid (white quebecois...).

Evaluations are not predictions nor do they claim to be.To date they are the best instrument available.

Assuming respect for the law of the land,the successful candidate is MORE likely to have an accident while driving since the failed candidate would not be driving and therefore would have zero probability of having an accident.

lol. As funny as that was, it still means that the driver who PASSED the test is the better driver (rather or not the other person decides to drive is immaterial to their skills).

John Nash (Schizophrenia) and Stephen Hawking (ALS) sustained their IQ thru ordeals that were more traumatic than your "hammer to the head" scenario.Your sad "hammer to the head" scenario also eliminates any concept of fairness from the testing process.

The two sons fathered by John Nash - different mothers, the second mother being an intellectual peer of John Nash to date have not shown any signs of genius.

Eh? It's not my "hammer to the head" scenario... I am saying it first so no one else would use it (or something similar) to "counter" my "intelligence is innate and cannot be altered" claim. It's a "catch-all".

A certain someone here likes to introduce unfair scenarios to demonstrate her points (like how a dumb homeless person would survive on the street than a smart average person). What I meant was simply "If you are intelligent, you will ALWAYS be intelligent"; which is supported by your arguments.

If even "a hammer to the head" (or something worse) can't alter a person's intelligence, then surely getting slap by your dad at the age 12 would not permanently affect a person's intelligence.

Well, John Nash was a GENIUS... Geniuses are not normal. We get geniuses by getting LUCKY. Genes sometimes mutate, which is the basis for evolution. The mutation can cause certain "non-existant" quality to appear in a population. I am sure his son are both of "above-average" intelligence.

 

[John_Cage]

There is a common misconception about the "survival of the fittest" component of Darwin's theories. It connotes fittest to spread one's genes. Do you think dumb Africans are more likely to get laid? I presume by other qualities, you mean athletic abilities e.g. being able to run quickly from predators. Is there any reason to suppose that intelligent people run more slowly?

Well, what I meant wasn't quite the same as what you stated. I meant that "intelligence" was LESS "selected" in Africa than Europe and Asia. Physical skills were probably selected more often in Africa than in Europe or Asia; thus by percentage, intelligence is LESS "selected". To state it differently, it's "even the dumb Africans get laid, not just the smart Africans". Whereas in Europe and Asia, the smart one "get laid" a lot more often.

It's not true that intelligent people run slower... it's that NORMAL people run slower than FAST runners (which are favored). Surely there are fast runner in the Europe and Asia population (just like there are Intelligent people in the Africa population). The key was that, Intelligent people are not "equally" distributed in Europe and Asia due to natural selection (positive tendency). While the percentage of "smart" people remain normal in Africa (since there's less selection), the percentage increase in other parts of the globe. After a few generations, the gene pool becomes altered.

Math:
Let's assume it's 25% of a population that's considered "intelligent"; similarly, 25% are fast runners.

Originally, there were 25% of each "top tier" in Europe, Asia and Africa. However, due to Europe and Asia favoring "intelligence", the percentage changed in Europe and Asia. Why? Let's see.

Let's say there's 100 people in each place. Let's assume the death rate of human populations is 50% (for easier calculations).

In E&A, those 50% tend to be the lower tier (on the intelligence scale), due to the "smart" offsprings being better protected. Thus the surviving 50 people becomes 50% smart (25 of the original smart ones) and 50% dumb (25 out of 75 of the original dumb ones). Now the population produces babies (50% smart and 50% dumb tend to create equal amount of smart and dumb babies; thus the percentage remains at 50%)

Similarly, this happens in Africa. However, since Africans favored "other" skills, their "intelligent offspring" is not being protected as well. So in the 50 deaths, 25% of them would be the smart ones (12.5 dead). Now the new population's smart:dumb ratio remains 1:3 (12.5:37.5).

Obviously, it's a simplified explaination. Personally, I don't think of it as a "racist" study. A study cannot be "racist" on its own... it's how it's applied. I didn't say "Let's discriminate them !!!", I simply explained why there's a IQ difference in races. In scientific terms, it's not even "difference in races"; it's "The gene pool in Asia tend to contain a high percentage of Intelligent gens, followed closely by Europe. The gene pool in Africa tend to have less intelligent genes."

This means very different things than "blacks are dumb". If we take 100 smart blacks, and 100 dumb asians, keep them seperated from each others and wait a few generations. The gene pool of the Asians would show "dumbness" while the gene pool of the Blacks would show "intelligence". The key here is that: Intelligence DOES NOT go hand in hand with skin tone, it's merely based on what attribute the geographic origin of the individual favors.

 

[John_Cage]

To judge if something is efficient, we analyse it's results;
To judge if something is moral, we analyse it's purpose.

The purpose of a research is to LEARN something... not to discriminate.

Prof. Rushton's researches ARE peer reviewed. He has supporters and opponents; just like any other researcher who made a important claim.

Yes, researches like Rushton's does raise flags of racism; but is that good enough a reason to discredit it? A theory is nothing more than a theory. It's how we choose to apply it that makes it right or wrong. Think about it this way, even IF we have ABSOLUTE prove that certain groups of people are better than others, would we have the guts to admit it? Or would we simply fire the person who brough this to our attention? Why are we SO sentitive when it comes to "race"? No one debates rather or not dophins are smarter than monkeys (heated debate), why is it that when the topic involves different groups of people (remember, I am talking about geographic groups), opinions become suppressed?

If it's possible for certain groups for homo sapians to jump high, run faster... then why is it SO impossible to believe that one of the groups could be smarter?

If we all agree that genes determine height, weight, eye color, hair color... then why is it so wrong to think that Intelligence is just like other attributes?

 

[John_Cage]

Remember that psychiatrist who lost his job? What's his name... Doc Mailloux? He had his own radio show. Remember? You know why he lost his job (both on the radio show and as a psychiatrist)? Because he was pushing the same theory as you.

Is it common practice for a person to lose his job due to an opinion? I think it's fundermentally unfair for him to be fired due to his opinion. To think something is racist is to suggest that "RACE" entered your mind when the topic is discussed (which would make you racist). Would it be any better if he avoided using the common term "race" and had said "geographical groups of human"? Most genetic scientists don't believe in the existance of "race". Race is a layman's term. Think about it this way, races can mix... species can't. That means the concept of "races" has very weak genetic support. The line between race is DEFINED by humans, not by nature (thus completely meaningless in the minds of a scientist).

Ever hear about Jane Elliot? Type her name in google and "blue eye brown eye experiment". A summary: The experiment was run over two days. A class of schoolchildren was told there was 'proof' that kids who had blue eyes were smarter than those who had brown eyes. Kids who had blue eyes promptly started oppressing the brown eyed kids. Brown eyed kids promptly responded by taking on their oppressed role. Blue-eyed kids had no trouble answering the teacher's questions. Brown eyed kids made more mistakes and didn't want to answer the questions after a while. The next day, the professor came back and said there had been a mistake. It was actually brown-eyed kids that were smarter. You would have expected those kids who had experienced being mocked and oppressed to not do it back to the blue-eyed kids right? Well no. They just as quickly took on their new roles.

The study was recently repeated (and has often been repeated over the last decades, with the same results) in a Quebec school, for a TV show on a French channel called Zone Libre. I think you can go download it on Radio-Canada. Parents gave their permission for the kids to be in this experiment. It was a very hard thing to watch.

Elliot originally came up with the idea to better understand how discrimination works. Not only are people more likely to discriminate against people if they belong to the culturally accepted 'better group', but belonging to a discriminated group has a CLEAR impact on will-- not 'intelligence', read carefully: that kids who were discriminated against no longer WANTED to even try to answer the prof's questions, or if they did, made more mistakes, even if these kids had been top of their class before. In other words, if you put those same kids in front of an IQ test, instead of a prof asking you to go answer a question on the blackboard, their WILL to complete the IQ test as successfully as possible will be impacted, and indeed, as I've recently been made aware of, when the Elliot experiment was redone with an IQ test (in a documentary for PBS), the 'smart' blue-eyed kids scored BETTER on average then the brown-eyed kids who had been told they were stupid.

I forgot to mention that the professor in all this would say to the brown-eyed kids, when they made a mistake: 'Oh, it's ok. That's because you have brown eyes and are less intelligent than the blue-eyed kids.'

Ask yourself this... whose fault was it? Was it the teacher's fault for saying "Blue eye kids are smarter"? Or was it the BLUE EYES who CHOSE to discriminate against the BROWN EYES? We can't control information JUST so that it won't be misused. The statement "Blue Eye kids are smarter" is innocent and (if it's true) a valuable piece of information. I agree that psychology plays a part in our world; but to suggest that adults behavoir the same way is... a stretch. How about a world where instead of "controlling the evironment" we "control the offending element"? Won't that be better? What I mean is: Instead of controlling Guns, Speech, Information and Ideas... we PUNISH those who misuse them (harder). We need to identify who's fault it is... then punish accordingly. It's NOT society's fault that John Doe murdered 200 women. It's JOHN DOE's fault ! If some idiot choose to do a "Hilter" after hearing about Rushton's research, it's the IDIOT'S fault (for being an idiot, and not Rushton's fault for being a researcher).

You sound exactly like Mailloux. Didn't he teach at McGill on the side? I forget which university it was. Good parrot, you.

I don't think he teaches here. What I stated are my thoughts formed based on what I learnt in classes (even though teachers don't push this idea; we get it).

Find me a standardized IQ test that can test people from all the nations of the world without discrimination to the knowledge that is valued in their society. Ok, maybe that's too hard. Find me a peer-reviewed study that supports what you've just said. Find it on Google if you want, it's ok. Like the UN World IQ report. That must be available online.

Really? If it exists, then I am certain it shows the same thing as Rushton's studies. Why? Because he took national information (for some of his data) from different countries; he didn't travel around the world giving out IQ tests.

The thing is... people are TOO afraid of racism. Thus, any data that even SUGGESTS something remotely racist, it will be suppressed.

Like I said many times before, if the test is racist (for Europeans, because we made the test)... then why aren't we the best? This shows that there are no (or at least very little) cultural bias. Mind you, I KNOW there is... just that it's not significant enough to change the results.

Blah, blah, blah. Stick to physics or biochemistry or whatever subject it is that you are knowledgeable enough to discuss without talking out of your (_Y_) (sorry, please don't take me too seriously I love you too)

Anthropology is a form of science (it's related to biology and genetics). My views are based on text books and facts. The effect of environment on how species evolve is a very basic concept, I just applied it to humans.

I didn't say that "there's a correlation between poor kids and poor performance (IQ and/or school)." I didn't say poor kids were more likely to have low academic acheivement but kids with low SE status were more likely to have low academic achievement as compared to kids with high SE status. Poor socio-economic status means a heck of a lot more than being poor. I say you go back to grammar school because quite clearly, you lack in the reading skills required to debate this sort of thing. Also, I didn't 'suggest' a connection, I expressed a convention in this field of research, based on evidence. Quite different from pseudoscience.

You never used the word "poor", true. However, you would notice that I put "SE background" in brackets in my post. If you don't like how I reduced poor SE background to POOR, then by all means, read it with "poor SE background". It still stands. Stupid Kids (if you don't like that, then read "Kids who performanced badly in school/IQ tests) generally lead to stupid adults which then leads to POOR SE background. Do you think Will Smith have the same social economic standings as some other black guy? No. SE status is achieved.

What this means is...
Yes, you showed a correlation between SE background and Performance in school.
You suggested the kids from a poor SE background are likely to performance worse.
I agreed. BUT, I offered an explaination why (because kids from a poor SE background are likely to have "low intelligence" genes).

So:
Low IQ ---> low SE background
\
--> poor performance in school/IQ tests.

Since both are correlated to low IQ, they correlate with each other.

Remember, I am in NO WAY suggesting that kids who never had a chance to go to school would DO JUST AS WELL AS rich kids. I am saying "YES" to environmental effects; but I am also giving a nod to NATURAL talent. All else being roughly equal (environment), there are still difference in performance (kids from relatively similar background can perform drastically different). That difference must MEAN something; there MUST be a factor that's causing kids to perform better in school. I am simple identifing that "natural factor" as Intelligence.

 

[JustBob]

"The gene pool in Asia tend to contain a high percentage of Intelligent gens, followed closely by Europe. The gene pool in Africa tend to have less intelligent genes."

NO and NO and NO! For the last time, this is not how genetics work. There's no such thing as "Asian", "European" or "African" genes. Homo Sapiens is a relatively homogenous species because interbreeding has gone on for millenia. In fact, most of the genetic variations in Homo Sapiens are intra-regional. For example, there are some of African tribes which are more different from one another genetically than they are from European whites. There's no such thing as a "black" (or any other race) genotype.

Furthermore, Rushton has the whole process backwards. He starts with populations (or "races", which have no grounds in genetic categorization) and then draws correlations (not causation...) to genetic makeup, while biologists start with clearly defined characteristics fairly directly linked to genetic differences (like blood groups), and then, factoring in hybridisation, genetic isolation, etc... will draw conclusions about "population" status. Any geneticist using Rushton's approach would be ridiculed.

You know what, you remind me of myself when I was a biology student. A bunch of my friends (and fellow students) and I, became completely enamored with a book titled "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis". Oh my god, this was revolutionary stuff! We'd discuss it for hours on end, and it became our bible... Well, it turns out it was mostly based on giant logical leaps using shaky anthropomorphic theories. You have the same attitude of passion and naiveté of youth towards Rushton's work. That's not science and reason my friend, that's faith.

And since you can't argue with faith, I'm officially retiring from this discussion. Have fun.

P.S. I remember reading a transcript of a debate between Rushton and other scientists who disagreed with him. Do you know how he replied to well thought out criticism? He basically, in bullet form, spewed out a bunch of results and statistics from his research, ending with something like "These are the facts and the critics are wrong...". So much for intelligent debate...

 

[John_Cage]

JoelCairo...

You show your face around here after this (following)?

Excellent answer, eastender. We might also note that in the same post you reference by Mr. Cage, there are several other errors. He writes "wether" rather than "whether". He writes "accursed" rather than "accused". He writes a sentence that is not a complete sentence: 'Because his intention is to cause dismay with me (the person)."

"Excellant answer, eastender." is not a complete sentence.

"We might also note that in the same post you reference by Mr. Cage."

It is "referenceD".

Multiple tense mistakes, such as writing "writes" rather than "wrote", were made following the first two sentence through out the entire first paragraph.

---

It's a forum, not a writing contest; which is why I don't check my spellings nor do I reread my posts (also why I use weird words such as "lol" and "OMG"... what do they mean? How do one even pronounce them?).

For you, someone who try to judge others, to write a paragraph which NONE of the sentences are correct, it must stung. Is that why you insist on repeating your points? You are not qualified to judge, that's what I proved. I didn't say "I am judging you! You SUCK !" I am saying it's pointless to point out other people's mistakes (especially since you make them too).

Do you know that in a court of law, certain things are deemed "important" and likewise, certain things are deemed "useless"? For example if a witness on the stand is a hooker, the lawyers cannot use that information to sway the jury (unless the information suggest that the witness is less reliable). Usually, a witness' religious beliefs, political views, personal life... etc is not "important" in judging whether or not the person is reliable. So, usually a lawyer cannot attack a person's personality (in order to attack the person's creditability). This is changed when the witness' personality comes into question; like when the opponent introduced it. If your opponent brought the personality and/or beliefs of a witness into question (to reinforce a point, or whatnot), THEN you are allowed to do the same. Simply for the sake of fairness, and because your opponent DEEMED it important enough to be brought into the spot light. For example, if your opponent try to reinforce the creditability of a witness by suggesting that he/she is a religious person who never lies under oath, then you are allowed to say how this person used to cheat on his/her spouse in order to discredit the claim that he/she never lies (to counter the fact that he/she is a creditable witness). It's the concept of introducing a new element.

YOU introduced a new element into this discussion. You brought up spelling and grammar; YOU deemed it important. Now I countered your point by showing how bad your lingistic skills really is (thus unfit to judge). Realize that because YOU introduce the "judging of linguistic skills" into question, I do not NEED to be "qualified" to judge you. I can simply use your introduction to suggest that YOU are unfit to judge. Even if we are both unfit to make judgements, YOU are the one who's at fault; because you have poor linguistic skills AND you made a judgement on other people. I am merely a person who doesn't double-check my posts; You are the one who's wrong and bad at forming proper sentences.

Honestly, it's very stupid of you to challange someone when you are not capable.

PS: I don't know how much you know about how publishing works... so let's just say writers don't really get direct access to the publishing company's editors, nor would the editors bother to read anything the writers wrote UNLESS the company told them to do so. Well, I doubt you want your little sad paragraph shown to anyone anyways.

 

[JustBob]

John, here's some advice free of charge. Just ignore joelcairo. He invariably turns up in threads for the sole purpose of attacking, aggravating and belittling other posters. He's the fly on the wall that's trying to drive you crazy...

 

[John_Cage]

NO and NO and NO! For the last time, this is not how genetics work. There's no such thing as "Asian", "European" or "African" genes. Homo Sapiens is a relatively homogenous species because interbreeding has gone on for millenia. In fact, most of the genetic variations in Homo Sapiens are intra-regional. For example, there are some of African tribes which are more different from one another genetically than they are from European whites. There's no such thing as a "black" (or any other race) genotype.

I am glad I am not the only one who's passionate about things like this.

I agree with most of your statements; they are the common belief among people who studied genetics. I believed that "races" don't actually exist; so of course there are no "black genes". I am saying that maybe the genes in the geographic region where blacks lived has a different concentration of genes (alleles). There alleles are in NO WAY connected to Europe or Asia or Africa (genes are Race Neutral). The only point I don't agree with is this: "Homo Sapiens is a relatively homogenous species because interbreeding has gone on for millenia."

I know there were interbreeding going on (since homo sapiens can travel more freely than other animals); but is it ENOUGH so that different regions have exactly the same gene pool? It's true that when you introduce a "long eared" rabbit into a group of "short eared" rabbits, you change the gene pool of the "short eared" rabbits permanently; but is it enough to bridge the difference between the two? There ARE mixing of genes (freely) between all "3 groups". I am not suggesting there are NO intelligent genes in Africa. I am suggesting that maybe it's less frequent. Species might interbreed, but that does mean the WHOLE population is mixed; neither does it mean that natural selection stopped working. If the humans are truly homogenous, then how are we capable of visual identifing "different races"? Why is the "intelligence" gene "equally distributed" due to interbreeding and NOT the "darker skin" gene (concentration of melan in skin cells). If humans are homogenous, wouldn't it follow that we would all look the same? Why are the "blue gene" capable of staying in Europe (even after Blue-Eyes mix with Brown-Eyes in Africa)? It's obvious that there IS a difference in gene pool among the 3 largest geographical region of homo sapiens; the only question that remains is... what is the concentration of each gene in each region? This can only be found empirically.

The difference (in terms of genetics) between two humans is EXTREMELY small. Race is not a good indication of how "close" two humans relate to each other. I am also not making the claim that "blacks" are "dumber". I never had any first hand data, I can ONLY deduce from other people's statistics. If certain groups of African showed higher IQ than Europeans or Asians, then it must mean they expericence a genetic selection process that favored high intelligence. My claims are entirely race neutral. I am not suggesting ONE race is smarter; I am suggesting that people could be different based on which gene pool he/she is from.

If this discussion has indeed offend someone, then I don't mind withdrawing from it. I just don't understand why people can't just see past the "race"; and see science as it is.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I am aware that the validity of Prof. Rushton's research is being challanged by many of his peers. My views is independent of his. He's showing "the difference between races"; while I am commenting "the existance of the differences and what caused it". I have no view on who is ACTUALLY smarter (without any first hand information); it's not the point, I am not arguing the superiority of some group of people.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Perroquets

What I stated are my thoughts formed based on what I learnt in classes (even though teachers don't push this idea; we get it).

You sound exactly like Mailloux. Didn't he teach at McGill on the side? I forget which university it was. Good parrot, you.

"Avoir une opinion", quand celle-ci est répétée presque mots à mots d'un locuteur à l'autre, est l'expression consacrée du psittaciste qui s'ignore.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

You know what, you remind me of myself when I was a biology student. A bunch of my friends (and fellow students) and I, became completely enamored with a book titled "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis". Oh my god, this was revolutionary stuff! We'd discuss it for hours on end, and it became our bible... Well, it turns out it was mostly based on giant logical leaps using shaky anthropomorphic theories. You have the same attitude of passion and naiveté of youth towards Rushton's work.

Well, JC, you just saw the future that awaits you.

 

[eastender]

Just a Thought

We tend to view people as black or white, describing them by origin - race, nationality,etc.

Perhaps if we saw each other as simply being a shade of brown with red blood, similar parts and inner structures we would be further ahead.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Lapalissade

We tend to view people as black or white, describing them by origin - race, nationality,etc.

Perhaps if we saw each other as simply being a shade of brown with red blood, similar parts and inner structures we would be further ahead.

Personne ne s'ingénierait à fournir des fondements théoriques au racisme si le racisme lui-même pouvait être aboli du fait d'un beau mot, plein de vérité, lequel cependant n'aura jamais d'autre valeur qu'un argument ad populum.

 

[chef]

We tend to view people as black or white, describing them by origin - race, nationality,etc.

Perhaps if we saw each other as simply being a shade of brown with red blood, similar parts and inner structures we would be further ahead.

You could also think of them as mathematical equations with different roots.

BTW how did the innocuous first post in this thread morph into such complex discussions? I tried skimming through them, but had to give up as my brain began to hurt. Anyone care to discuss recipe books ?

 

[eastender]

Just post..........

You could also think of them as mathematical equations with different roots.

BTW how did the inocuous first post in this thread morph into such complex discussions? I tried skimming through them, but had to give up as my brain began to hurt. Anyone care to discuss recipe books ?

Just post that you hate certain recipes or that certain types of cooking is superior and you stand a chance of adding another five pages of posts.

 

[John_Cage]

We tend to view people as black or white, describing them by origin - race, nationality,etc.

Perhaps if we saw each other as simply being a shade of brown with red blood, similar parts and inner structures we would be further ahead.

That's exactly right; which is why I choose to identify people based on how "productive" they are to our society. Why would someone's skin tone or where he/she come from matter to me at all? I have to actually CARE about the individual to care about his/her origins. I tend to only see people as a mathematical sum of their capabilities.