Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/10/2018 in all areas

  1. You all bring so much passion and fire to your posts! I appreciate ALL of your words and look forward to seeing many more thought provoking posts such as the ones I've read. I really do mean it when I say I appreciate ALL thoughts, not just some. Watching the opposition between ideas sharpens me and makes me even more desirous to fall back and detach from views that could be debated all day long. Bottom line, 99% of what we know we get from methods we cannot personally confirm. It's a sad truth. But it is what it is. I lay wait like a lion in the bushes for new information to guide us to truths. Stay lively and keep bringing the fire! Thanks for having me here!
    2 points
  2. @Mel Hopkins, I think you dropped the Buddhism bomb. Attachment. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have found in the past that when I have too much of a stake in the outcome of a conversation, I become too passionate...I want to be right, I want the world to revolve around my views. I am not open to possibility. No matter WHAT I discuss on ANY forum or in person, no matter what I express, I am NOT attached to it, no matter what I say about my feelings on a topic. That is why I do not get upset with anyone who has a different view or experience and eventually go silent when folks cannot consider another view on a topic. I don't want anyone to "take my side" but to just consider ideas. Because at the end of the day, my stance is, we could ALL be wrong about our thoughts/ideas/opinions, even, dare I say, our observations that we define a certain way. Our observations in and of themselves may not be wrong, but our interpretation of what we observe could be 100% wrong. There could be 6 billion separate views of life and existence, and they could ALL be wrong because we have yet, as a human species, to advance to the point of understanding what we THINK we are looking at. So while I enjoy discussions about things and I share what I THINK I know, I am not attached to anything. I leave myself forever open to possibility. Possibility. That is the crux of it. So many are attached to their view of the world and how they've defined their observation that they cannot consider possibility. For example, I've pondered the changes in weather/climate, etc., and have not come away with this doom and gloom that is pushed by the scientific community and something that needs to be fixed. Just like we go through seasons in a year--winter, spring, summer, fall--what IF the planet is merely going through a couple millennia long season? What if what we think is some terrible warming that could destroy everything on Earth is merely the planet's normal shift into Summer that will last for about 2,000 years? I am not saying for sure that is what it is, but because we are so stuck on what we've decided the observation means, we cannot consider other possible reasons for what we are observing that does not include doom and gloom. Love your assessment on attachment. It brought up a lot that I often meditate on. I detach when I see I am communicating with those who are attached to their way of seeing things, or have decided that their conclusions on their observations are the ONLY conclusion that can be derived from an observation or experience. That is why you will rarely if ever hear/read me use the words, "you are wrong" no matter if I think they COULD be. I am more inclined to ask, "Could you be wrong?" If someone said to me they are going to walk off a mountain because gravity doesn't exist, to be frank, unless it is my child, I am not arguing with grown folks who think the way they see is the ONLY way. I'll merely ask them, after a bit of discussion to gauge how they came to their conclusion (can't let them go out without at least speaking on gravity), if they can, to let me know how it goes when they've tried it. Cause at the end of the day, maybe they've developed a way to fly that I am unaware of. So who am I to tell them they are wrong? LOL. :: closing eyes and crossing legs :: I detach myself from my opinions, knowledge, information, facts and beliefs. Ommmmmm. Namaste...
    2 points
  3. I believe it is well-documented that environment is factor in genetic mutation... the whole "Out of Africa" project details the mutation of the mitochondrial DNA to track how humans changed as they moved further away from the equator. Geneticist classify modern humans in haplogroups to mark our movements around the world - "race" is never mentioned in the study but rather they identify the change in genetic code. Also @zaji points out the initial testing, the Cambridge Reference Sequence came a European woman and worked it's way back to Africa. Not all mtDNA results are derived from that test. There are a few, one in use is the Yoruba mtDNA. For example, my results came from FamilytreeDNA and they use(d) revised (rCRS ) and RSRS (Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence) The RSRS results are based on the mitochondrial Eve's ancient genome. As I've mentioned here before, according to my results my haplogroup L3 is from Ethiopia My halplogroup maternal ancestor was the progenitor of the Eurasian (European and Asian) haplogroup L, M, who left Africa. Today, they look different from Ancient Africans but that's due to their migration patterns. If they came from the first woman in my line, my maternal ancestor but left Africa this should stand to reason environment caused a mutation in their genetic code. This would be the same way environment caused my genetic code to become different from the original modern human woman, mitochondrial Eve. I'm still her descendant but my maternal ancestor's migration pattern caused my genes to mutate and for me to look different. Also there was a recent article on early human - the "cheddar" man who died about 10,000 years ago. But getting back to the thesis of this post, discussing what "race" is or isn't" is actually trying to make sense of mentally-ill babblings. We know there's no biological foundation for race. In the same respect, there's no scientific basis for culture either. Still I subscribe to what serves me - and that's doesn't mean I'm brainwashed - but rather I think certain mental illnesses can be contagious. Or borrowing Nietzsche phrase from Beyond Good and Evil - He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.
    2 points
  4. Zaji I understand what you are saying (I've have heard from Pioneer and others). There is no gene for race. Now if you do not believe this, all of the opinions you form will be flawed, and nothing I say will make sense to you. Saying there are numerous physical characteristics is no better than saying rce is a function of skin color. Humanity is so diverse you will always find people who are Black but would fail your more complex "brown bag" test. Of course there are genes (and environmental causes), which explain the differences in the way people look. But people are not cats, unless you want to talk about humanity in terms of different breeds. Lion are as different from tigers and cats as humans are from bonobos and chimps, because all "Black" people and "white" people are all Homo spaiens. Now, if we want to continue to use the word race to describe phenotypic differences between people fine. I do it in the course of informal conversation myself, but I also have no problem acknowledging someone who presents as "white" as a Black person, because because given the history of rape in this country "Black: people are all colors of the spectrum. This is perhaps one reason why "Afro-American" is a better term than "Black" to describe the so called Black American, particular ones descendant from enslaved Africans. Leonce and Pioneer use this term as well; I think for similar reasons.
    2 points
  5. Actually YOUR stance on "race" is illogical. Knowing that race is a CATEGORY, logically speaking there MUST be more than one option. So for you to take the position that there is only ONE race....the human race. Is like saying that there is only ONE flavor of soda pop....the "soda pop" flavor. See my point? To say there is only ONE race....the human race....would be like claiming the words "race" and "human" are almost synonymous.
    1 point
  6. @zaji Thank you for your presence!
    1 point
  7. Yes, Yes, Yes,! (I'm over here giggling -because I have to meditate on this All.The.Time. )
    1 point
  8. The book club I have been working with The Tea actually selected Tayari's novel An American Marriage for the February Reading list, for which the topic was romance. The video below showed the selection process. The book club's discussion has taken place and I'm a guest participant. That video will be published later this month. I'm hoping the fantastic attention generated by being an Oprah selection will draw more attention to The Tea's Videos. The video below shows the selection process. Basically The Tea shoots three videos for each month's selection. The selection process (the video below), the get to know the author video (these videos are just about as good as they come. I find it amazing that they are not getting much more attention), and the book club's discussion (which will be published on Thursday). The photo below is from Tayari's book party which took place on Thursday, February 8th, in Brooklyn, New York. From left to right is; Rob Fields, who is the President & Executive Director of the Weeksville Heritage Center; Poet John Keene, who was one of the 1st people I put on AALBC.com; Tyehimba Jess, winner of the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for Poetry; Tarari; me; Mike Thompson, owner the Brooklyn Moon Cafe, which is well known for their poetry readings; Clarence V. Reynolds, is the Director of The Center for Black Literature, and runs the National Black Writers Conference; I actually don't know the brother on the far right. Finally, the dude kneeling is Ron Kavanaugh, who run the Literary Freedom Project and published Mosaic Literary Magazine (@Mel Hopkins, Ron was in our class at Tech).
    1 point
  9. I have never experienced what I consider to be true freedom, so I have no idea what it really is and what it feels like, but I do know what I don't consider freedom. And everything this culture is, for me, is the opposite of how I envision/imagine authentic freedom.
    1 point
  10. All I know is, if reincarnation exists and I have a choice, I do NOT wanna come back here. LOL!
    1 point
  11. Race is subjective; a recently created construct that has been abandoned by the scientific community, but firmly held onto by lay people. The amount of melanin one has is, of course, based upon their genetics and one's genotype is objective -- about as subjective as you can get. However, @zaji, @Pioneer1, why is there no genetic test for race?
    1 point
  12. Pioneer there are always restrictions and consequences, these issues do not take away from our freedom. I'm free to skydive, but the chute might not open. For some the possibility is enough to prevent them from engaging in the activity, but they are free to do it. Now if they do it and the chute does indeed fail to deploy the consequence is death, but still they exercised their freedom. Freedom includes one's ability to exercise caution, judgement, restraint. Now a child may be prevented from skydiving, because a parent or the law may not permit it. That child is less free than the adult.
    1 point
  13. ..but you need to do experience to get to the point where you can sequence gene, tear atoms apart, and to observe the cosmos. And don't be so confident about what you see. The you remember the Blue/Gold dress image even everyday optical illusions should cause to question everything you see. Of course we all know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. We, all people, MUST rely on the knowledge of others. This is the very thing that has allowed humanity to advance.
    1 point
  14. I don't think I have an emotion response to Pioneers posts. When I agree with him it is not begrudging either. In fact I often feel, as I've said before, I can relate to Pioneer because I've shared many of the opinion he hold -- even the one on race. @Delano I think you may be projecting your relationship with Pioneer onto others. At least in my case you are not seeing it the way I do.
    1 point
  15. I like this quote: "Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans." And this one, too: "Life is a journey that is homeward bound." But this is my favorite: The 3 stages of Life: 1. Birth. 2. What the fuck is this? 3. Death. Finally, what intrigues me most when i contemplate life is this quote by Edgar Allen Poe; "All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream" Life is a mystery. i wouldn't presume to understand it. It's all i can do to live it.
    1 point
  16. Man, you just started a thread with 3 or 4 separate topics.....lol. But I don't think you CAN make "sense" of certain things in your life I think you can make LOGIC of them, meaning....you can explain WHY they happened. But as far as seeing some "thread" of commonality that runs through every single event or attempting to put everything together that happens in your life as if they're a piece to a giant puzzle....I don't think you can do that. I've met people who claim that EVERYTHING happens for a reason, but I believe some things are just plain random.
    1 point
  17. No Troy they weren't as precise. Precision and accuracy are different. You are saying the aren't accurate. @Troy Read this and then admit you are wrong. Not impecise but inaccurate. Let me skip to your third paragraph, because this highlights a very important point not commonly appreciated by non-scientists. In Physics a "theory" is a mathematical model based on various assumptions and valid for a limited range of physical conditions. Newton's laws are a mathematical model that is limited to non-relativistic speeds and low gravitational fields, and within those limits it is exceedingly accurate. There is no sense in which Newton was proved wrong by Einstein. What relativity did is expand the range of physical conditions over which the theory applied. Special relativity extended the range to include high speeds, and general relativity extended it again to include high gravitational fields. Even GR is not applicable everywhere because it fails at singularities like the centre of black holes. We expect that some future theory (string theory?) will extend GR to describe places that are singular in GR. Anyhow, rant over, and on to your real question. The classic difference is the precession of Mercury. This is probably the biggest effect and it's certainly the most easily observed. Because the orbit of Mercury is an ellipse it has a long axis that points in a particular direction. In Newtonian gravity the direction of this axis doesn't change, but GR predicts it changes by 43 arc-seconds per century. This is a tiny tiny amount. The angular resolution of the unaided human eye is about 1 arc-minute, so you would have to watch Mercury for 140 years before the change in the axis would be perceptible. You are smarter than rocket scientist who use Newtonian physics. https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton.html
    1 point
  18. Yes it is hard to correlate tempeature with Co2, isn't that the point of Global Warming? Yes I admittht I am wrong about sampling and you may be right. I have no issue admitting that I am wrong. And sometimes I can figure it out on my own. I don't knowwhy you keep saying that I am not an expert in climate change. If yu see the doctor they tell you your options and you decide. That is my approach look at issues then ask a question. You teach science to kids, that's good an commendable.
    1 point
  19. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality. Have a read. The text below the link is from the article. https://futurism.com/newtonian-physics-vs-special-realtivity/ http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae392.cfm Newtonian Mechanics turns out to be a private case of Quantum Mechanics. In some situations, the behavior of the sub-atomic particles can be described well enough by Newton's Laws, but the more general theory is the Quantum Mechanics.
    1 point
  20. There is a difference between me saying you are wrong and saying I am right. Asking a personto give an example to back up a statement is an effective tactic in argument. Most people can't which then weakens the rest of the argument. This is the second time. After some thought I changed my mind and realised Cynique was correct. Years back i was wrong and you were right about sampling. The climate is changing. It may also be due to fossil fuels. But the models and the predictions are misleading. The two not for profits are making misleading statements. I have recently been very critical about Troy's usage of words. I am not defending Pioneer in order to get back at Troy. I find intelectual bullying distasteful. Elitism Racism Sexism are all ways to diminish and or dominate the target. Troy's attempts to use science and mathematics to silence the opposition. That is distasteful. Pioneer mentioned that he didn't go to university a while back. That moved me. Whether it was said with humility I don't know. What i have noticed with Troy recently is a need to attempt to use his pedigree to win arguments. Troy you are clearly a focused driven guy with multiple degrees. If the conversation is about engineering and mathematics, your opinions are informed. Being an expert in one field doesn't make you an expert in others. You telling me to Stfu doesn't warrant more of a response. The climate change data is not transparent. The undelying numbers have been altered. Go to Princeton University's site. They geometerological department says they have questuins about climate change that they can't answer. I don't expect that Troy will look at the opinion from credible scientist. You have made up your mind. We have a change in the climate. I am uncertain of the cause.
    1 point
  21. Cynique you may see me as wanting to be a leader here. Perhaps your are mistaking my comments to Troy as wanting to be a leader. I am an idea person. Having followers gernerally ends . badly. My compliment to Pioneer is a stand alone statement. If a person can be objective about a topic they love that is impressive. since objectivity is very rare. Having facts or factoid is not as impressive to me as reasoning. No my frustration about the psychic comments is more about my perceiving Pioneer as being dismissive about a field that he isn't conversant. Was it annoying yes. Was I emotionally wounded no. I don't geth urt feelings if I am wrong. I just say okay I missed it. Like with a few ofther readings I did here or my predictions about the academy awards
    1 point
  22. Del Don't let Cynique vex you. She's just frustrated at the fact that you said a few good things about me. Some people don't like to see Black men getting along with eachother....lol. Cynique So now you turn to Pioneer, who you previously dismissed because he didn't take your predictions and astrological claims seriously, and you do an about-face, heaping flattery upon him to get back at Troy. Damn. Lol, couldn't you have given me a FEW days to enjoy the compliments before bursting the bubble???? BTW, my modesty isn't false..... I truly understand and accept my limitations in scientific understandings. I would never compare my accomplishments with Troy's or claim to have as much knowledge as he does. But when I'm right....I'm right. Why? Because I base most of my convictions on EXPERIENCE or DIRECT OBSERVATION....not academic findings and paperwork from other sources that I had no hand in preparing.
    1 point
  23. I moved to Australia because I fell in love with an Australian women and could see our kids in my mind's eye . You are projecting the disillusionment with America. You have said explicitly that you have gotten to the point where you don't care. Yet you have displayed an annoyance with both Troy and Pioneer. I am not switching sides for some emotional reason, Since I don't have a side. I see the dynamic as you and Mel on one side, and Troy and Pioneer sometimes on the same side but for differing reasons. Can you think of one argument where I was on the same side with Troy and Pioneer. I don't take sides like in the Viola Davis discussion. I am less interested in agreement than thought. Have you noticed I have agreed with everyone here on some position or another because I could see logic in the argument. The argument didn't need to echo my opinion. I can see both sides in the argument about race and oddly it isn't terribly interesting. Have you noticed most of my comments have been either very short, not emotional and mostly in the last few days Troy's posts annoy me at times. Which means he is doing his job. Too much agreement would be boring. I was acknowledging Pioneer's recent posts. Was I trying to curry favor when I said that you and Mel write clearly and the logic is reasonable. What I have noticed, is that everyone here has had an emotional argument. You Mel Troy Pioneer and myself. I have no idea about what Pioneer is doing internally. I take him at his word. I think your criticism is mostly a projection. However like other criticism directed at me, like my typos and my being cryptic I will ponder. For me there is no title to be won. I just enjoying a bit of mental jousting. So you may be seeing another version of Del Strachen here or maybe you won't .. see it.
    1 point
  24. @Pioneer1 when I was 16 a made a comment about people in the south being slow because they talked slow. My friend's father said don't judge someone's intelligence by how slowly they speak. So now I listen to the thoughts and the logic behind the words. I have had academics try to baffle me with jargon. And I have spoken to cats that were more street, that were philosophical and could reason from their position to seeing the validity of the opposite position. Yeah I have been schooled and I think abstractly I think that comes across when I am having a conversation. However I like to be open or at least I think I am open to viewpoint from the entire spectrum. So I won't discount a cat that hasn't been able to afford time in the academy. I also don't put a premium on kittens who have lots of letters behind their names. What I do value is people who can express themselves and are open or can at least tolerate a difference of opinoin I am not swayed by credentials or degrees. I listen to the argument. Even though you see yourself as more linear. You arguments with abstract concepts is more appealing to my line of thought. However that doesn't mean that the points of difference are wrong. What is fascinating is that your discussion of race seems less personal although it appears to be of great interest and importance to you. That is talent, sir. To discuss subjects that you are passionate about with clarity and reason. I am thoroughly impressed when Anyone can manage that feat.
    1 point
  25. Del I was wondering if you have consciously changed your style? I've always been direct and linear. But because I'm an idealist, most of what I post about are the problems I've observed in society and what my ideal solutions are, so you probably don't see my linear or analytical side much. Also, because I'm not too smart or too educated (academically) I've learned the best thing for ME to do is not to get too fancy but to stay focused and on the point. If I tried to argue the way you, Troy, or other highly educated people argued....I'd get lost....lol.
    1 point
  26. Pioneer I just want to acknowledge that your style and methodology follow a logic that is internally consistent. I appreciate a well presented and thought out argument. That is neither argumentative nor emotional. I am also striving to present arguments that have less typos and are easier to understand. I was wondering if you have consciously changed your style? I am less inclined to blindly follow experts. Since even amongst experts you have dissenting opinions. The discussion pf those differences rationally is what propels discourse both personal and scientific.
    1 point
  27. @TroyThe superficial physicality of the term "breed" serves as a convenience when it comes to distinguishing one person from another. Its parallel in the canine species would be exemplified when it came to identifying a pit bull as the dog who bit you as opposed to a beagle. i don't think there is really a need to come up with a single word that encapsulates all that you imagine. Like-minded humans naturally gravitate toward each other in the course of interacting, and their common mentality draws them into groups which various adjectives can be used to describe. "Cosmopolitan" is one adjective that comes to mind when describing humans of a certain ilk. The ultimate ideal goal should, after all, be for individuals to transcend the physical and relate to those with whom they are intellectually and emotionally in sync with; a meeting of the minds. For instance, i am more at home with "white" individuals who share my meta-physical and philosophical interests than i am with blindly religious or Afro-centric "black" people yearning to elevate their self esteem. And believing that there are different races is not an example of being "poorly educated". But is a case of science correcting itself when different facts were considered. The idea that there were 3 racial stocks, Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, each of which was divided into sub-divisions was all that was taught until fairly recently, and this theory was accepted because it made sense.That's why it is so hard to refute. And at this point, contending that there is only one race is an exercise in futility, because the claim does not hold up in practice. In the real world, there is no color blindness when it comes to human perception and that's the bottom line. Our eyes, defy science.
    1 point
  28. Lol......is that Del coming to my rescue????? This reminds me of that episode of Good Times when JJ and Thelma stopped fighting eachother to challenge James......lol. Del It is a bit niggardly to not provide evidence of your argument. Definition of terms is importance or being clear about which meaning you are utilizing. I would say so........ Without FACTS to support our conclusions, it's basically an emotional argument. Which is why it's so important that Troy provide us with a CLEAR definition of the "scientific meaning" of race so that we can atleast have some sort of reference point to work from. Troy @Del, this is a tired debate with @Pioneer1, over the years I've presented him with a great deal of information to show that there is on one race. Indeed, this website covers the subject quite well. I'm afraid you don't know what I know what I've shared with Pioneer in the past, so you really should stay quiet on this point. Just because Pioneer says I've never shared evidence with him does not make it so. Again, a cursory search on this forum shows that not to be true. I'm not tired, I'm waiting. Waiting on the facts (if they exist) to prove my position on race to be erroneous (if it is). You may be right that Del doesn't know what you've shared with me to prove that there is only one race. But guess what.....NEITHER DO I...lol.     "Race is an invented political system, not a natural biological division. The Human Genome Project has confirmed that the human species cannot be divided into genetically distinguishable races. Race is a political grouping created to support slavery and colonialism, and its boundary lines have shifted over time and across nations to suit political ends…" —Dorothy Roberts, author of Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, And Big Business Re-Create Race In The Twenty-First Century OK, now we got something to work with....... Let's look at what Dorothy Roberts said....and DIDN'T say. Dorothy Roberts DOES NOT say that race doesn't exist. Dorothy Roberts DOES NOT say there is only one race. She DOES say that it is an INVENTED political system. She DOES say that it is a political GROUPING. This is important because both of these statements actually support MY position, being: 1. If race was INVENTED, that means it EXISTS. Which means it is real, whether you agree with it or not. 2. Because she calls race a GROUPING. This automatically means there are MULTIPLE RACES because there are muliple groups in a GROUPING. Thank you Troy for providing MORE EVIDENCE to support my conclusion that there ARE mulitple races.....lol.
    1 point
  29. Troy this is a discussion. So unless you want to censor me or delete my post. I will point out why and where you are mistaken. You ability to think critically or to even withstand criticism is appaling . If you want to be seen and respected as an expert. Your delivery and content of your arguments need to be sharper. or maybe just learn yo argue using rhetoric. Or I can just stop posting. or engaging with you. I'll close my mouth when you start opening your mind. Having knowledge in engineering doesn't make youan expert in any other field.
    1 point
  30. It is a bit niggardly to not provide evidence of your argument. Definition of terms is importance or being clear about which meaning you are utilizing. So you feel that way Pioneer and everyone else is free to feel another way. Then you say you understand why people would disagree. Scientist can take a position on the existence of God that doesn't make them correct. Also being a scientist doesn't make one correct in things that are outside of the scientist's speciality. So Neil Tyson DeGrasse arguing with the CEO using unscientific arguments also doesn't make him an expert. Nor does parroting figures that you don't understand.
    1 point
  31. Do the following search, diseases by race . Pioneer is making a more convincing argument , it is debate worthy. The last sentence is the crux of the argument . You seem to confuse clarity with agreement . Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like " white" and "black" being used as biological variables. Pioneer has a valid point .
    1 point
  32. Troy No, not any more, because you can easily look it up yourself. Now I know you won't look it up, because you know -it probably DOESN'T EXIST. And you know that too, which is why you aren't providing the definition...lol.
    1 point
  33. I take all that to mean you WON'T be providing us with the "scientific meaning" of race anytime soon....lol.
    1 point
  34. Troy   what I wrote would appear to be a contradiction to your because you reject the scientific meaning of race. THE scientific meaning? I didn't know there was an actual "scientific" definition. I'm familiar with the MERRIAM-WEBSTERS definitions: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race 1 : any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits. But if there is a "scientific" meaning for race, I'd like to see it. Can you please provide it here, complete with links to the official publications/sources?     Yes, skin color is based upon one's genetics--but not race, because there is only one race. Yes, you have it human and race are synonymous. Well if both human and race are synonymous.....then how can there be only ONE race when there are BILLIONS of humans? If race = human then there are as many races as there are human beings according to your logic.
    1 point
  35. Troy if you don't believe in race. Why say a white racist? . I assume you are talking about the white race. If there is only one race you can't be a racist. You aren't being consistent in your use of race. in the implied sense "white" or the explicit sense "racist ". Too means also you should Too or two. I could complain about your gramar and lack of logic. hee hee hee But I won't.
    1 point
  36. Troy What you describe as race are various forms of skin color, ethnicities nationalities, that are applied differently at different times across different cultures. It is a human construct with no basis in our genetics. Just because it's a human construct, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The Empire State building is a human construct also, but try ignoring it...lol. Now come on man, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence.....lol. You said that what I'm talking about is in part based on various skin colors, but THEN turn around and say there is no genetic basis for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't skin color based on GENES?
    1 point
  37. Michael Miliken made $550 million in Bonus in 1986. So his Bonus was more money than McDonald's made that year. Yeah he was constantly on his Cell phone and he smoked cigars. Since I am name dropping I also met Ken Chenault when I was an Intern at American Express. He is another hitter. Also Clifton Wharton who stays under the radar. Man Pioneer most people don't have the focus or drive to work with any of those cats. They are on a next level. Most people can't alk for ten minutes on any subject. Although I am pretty sure you could. And I am not being sarcastic or ironic.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...