RELly, I Got no Ideal Or good aNswer.

Remaking http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929281/

I must concur, though it does seem to make it easy to tell which publisher likes their fanbase

IMHO credit cards are a bad thing

That's not good. Especially for the men.

My http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/14/Blade_WTF.gifto that was the same as everyone else.

I agree with the nukes and the weapons more advanced than the bow and the axe. It would be amazing to still use those weapons. A true test of a man. Now a days you can't so much as get into a fight without worrying that someone will bring a gun. And that is just the simplest of things about evolved weaponary.

Good god, if my grandpa catches wind of this invention he'll never take the damned things off. This is exactly the kind of stupid [censored] he buys one of for each member of the family.

Well that's wrong. I'm not sure it was ever an idea, but a horrible reality in my opinion is Religion, far more dangerous than Nuclear power, which, will in the long-term be more good than harm to the human race.

I want a pair of Sauna Pants!

-Democracy
-Multiculturalism
-Communism
-Lady Gaga
-Positive Psychology

How is that wrong exactly? It has actually been studied and tested. Do some research before saying something is wrong will you? Got it straight out of my Ethnic studies professors mouth. I even have an exam on it. I am at a University.

The morphological differences in our genetics like skin and bone structure are such a small part of our DNA that is basically irrelevant. We are actually 99% genetically identical to Chimpanzees.

You could easily have more in common genetically with someone not of your race as you would with someone of your race.

@The guy who linked the race definition, you did not link to the correct definition. That is the Biological definition not the anthropological definition. There is a difference and the correct information was on the top of the page you linked to.
"Among humans, race has no taxonomic significance; all living humans belong to the same hominid subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29

Did you pass?

Gingers.

It is in a few hours. And yeah I will pass. I am not saying humans can be identical to each other but will have a nearly identical genetic code to just about anyone in the world and it does not matter what your 'race' is. There is nothing hard-coded that makes us different from one another in any significant way. There are slight variations but the actual genetics involved in those variations are minimal. Incredibly so.

People are still pretty ignorant about this. Look at my last post. i edited it.

@Medivh, About the European Imperialistic Catholics thing? http://anthropology.net/2008/06/30/the-concept-of-race/

Have fun with all that. Learning is fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH40LuAmHok&t=0m10s

Sorry, I just had to.

EA buying Westwood.
Political correctness.
The Irish government.
Hitlers mother and father celebrating their aniverrsary.
Violence as a last resort.
Family friendly stuff.
Jedward.
Not making more Father Ted episodes. "I love my brick!"

I need to do some research? You claimed that 'race... is all superficial'. I'm pretty sure that it isn't, and although your second statement is correct, it's because it's impossible to have identical genes with anyone, whether it's your race or another, not because race doesn't exist.

Good luck on your exam. Just a tip though, Chimps share 98.6% of DNA with Humans, not quite 99%

Different races have different cosmetic features, different bone structures, and are more or less susceptible to different diseases and deficiencies. They also carry different strengths and weaknesses physically, mentally and emotionally, among other things. I'm not quite sure what you all are carrying on about, because what seems one way on paper is not the same as in reality; look at table salt and then look at what elements combine to create it.

Culturally everyone is different though. I agree that racism is [censored] up, but what's equally [censored] up are the people who think that we're all the same. There's a bloke in Syria who's bombing his own people because they don't like him very much. It's also illegal to be gay in Zimbabwe. A lot of places are ridiculously backwards, so I apologise if I don't want to be compared to them.

P.S I am not geyz.

Hmm...too many to count, but I would say that supposed belt that shocks a person's fat [censored] healthy just by wearing it. Proves that we as a society are lazy as heck and expect everything to be done for us. Just waiting for the world to be like the movie Wall-E where we roam around in chairs with a monitor in our face 24/7.

Thinking that every country should have the same moral code or social laws.

Not going to get into the whole "we're the same, we're different" argument, but I feel the need to point out that just because someone said it's true - whether it's a professor or a stranger on the street - isn't really a valid proof of truth. The way your professor sees the world is skewed by his own beliefs and therefore isn't "scientific" just because he said so.

Reports, by various people, sharing the same results are proof.

Just sayin'.

As for on topic:
99% of "as seen on TV" products. I mean, really?

And footed PJs are awesome!

I have seen and read some of that WIki link you posted, but I am far from convinced. If race is really purely a social construct and has nothing to do with genetics, shouldn't then Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie be able to have http://www.heavensfamilymedia.org/mini-update/special-reports/africatrip-09/06-07/african-child.jpg (adoption does not count! ) Anyway, I'm no geneticist, so I'll leave it at that.

About the European imperialistic Catholic thing however, both you and the writer of that little article are very wrong.


Obviously the guy hasn't read a lot of history books (or only a whole bunch of books by apologists writing about the slavery system in the early modern Atlantic world).

Somehow every 'historian' who's work this author's read claims that people did not recognize different races (following Ore's definition, which he uses himself) until Europeans came to America. This in an incredibly silly idea. The first definitive instance of someone mentionging race, as being "a group of people who perceive themselves and are perceived by others as possessing distinctive hereditary traits”, that I can think of is in Tacitus' Germania. Tacitus there makes practically the same distinction between race and ethnicity when referring to the Germanic peoples, labelling the Germans as a race and the different tribes, with their own cultures, as being of differing ethnicities (though he does not use that specific word, it is however what he intends). The distincitve hereditary traits he mentions that separate them from Celts and Romans are their blue eyes, red hair, their great height, great strength but lack of endurance and a few other things.

Now whether his description of the Germans is correct (which, in several of his examples, is doubtful by the way, especially in the border areas there probably wouldn't have been any noticebale difference between Celts and Germans, besides perhaps their languages) is completely irrelevant. What is important is that an author in around 98 AD, long before the existence of the Catholic Church (which is not the same as Christianity!) and over 1300 years before Europeans arrived in America, already uses the same definitions of race and ethnicity that you claim are invented by Catholics in the fifteenth century. And this is only the earliest example I can think of for which I have clear proof, but Tacitus definitely wasn't the first. I'm pretty sure that the ancient Greeks thought of the different peoples of the Persian empire as being of different races than their own, for example. So no, you really cannot blame Catholics for that.

Gamgee was fooling my friend of steam, and changed the game he was playing to: Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer beta.

Why would I blame today's Catholics for something that people in the past did? It is not their fault. Idk if catholic is really appropriate though. European people are though(I am 'white' btw) I know it is hard to accept but only at around the turn of the 17th century do you see much importance placed on race. It is then that you see the idea of black or white emerge. Prior to that it was all ethnics. You would have the persian race or the greek race. Not the white race or the arabs. It was the chinese race or the songhai race before. Then in order to justify the use of slaves when the Americas were discovered did the church come into doubt. The discovery of america contradicted what they 'knew' to be true. Kind of a bad thing for an all powerful religious organization to be wrong and they thought that maybe the people in America were not gods people and something else. Capitalism lead to people trying to prove biologically that the other people from Africa and America were inferior to other people and thus justifiable in they eyes of god to use as slaves. This is one of the first times in history a specific group of people was enslaved based purely on how they looked. Before that it was whoever, wherever, if it was a slave owing society they wanted them. Out of this rose ideas of white supremacy and racial inferiority for non whites. I am out of time and need to go but I will gladly continue this subject after I am done with my classes.

Here are some links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_humans%29#Early_modern_concepts_of_race
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/web2/ramon2.html

Not for the inhabitants of Pripyat or Okuma.

Actually you were, and the author still is, because you are now saying something different than before. What you said, and what is in the article, is that
I have just proven that to be nonsense. Now you say that the European arrival in America was the beginning of using race to dehumanize groups of people for the purpose of enslaving them. As far as I know you are correct about that, but that is not what you said before, and it also is not what the author of the article you linked to is saying.

Their you are again saying that before the black slavery thing it was always all about ethnicity, not race. I have just proven how that is not the case, so I'm not sure why you're still following that train of thought. 'Racism' is much older than the enslavement of Africans. Which by the way, is also much older than the enslavement of Africans by Europeans, the Arabs had been doing it for centuries before. The Europeans just became part of an already existing trade network.

As for this:
Again, I'm no geneticist so I'm sure I'm missing some vital knowledge for understanding this, but if I can clearly see the difference between the 100 black women on one hand and the 100 white guys on the other, but a geneticist examining their DNA in a laboratory cannot, then how useful are geneticists anyway? The genetical differences may be incredibly small, but they are clearly important if they have such clear influences on individuals' phenotypes.

Sorry If I am being a little disorganized but i will reorganize the argument when i get back. I was up all night and was in the process of studying while typing that out. Also you have not proved a thing. You just said you did. I will set you straight when I get back.